Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[Simulist]

Quite right. On all counts.

This thread has been very illuminating, also terribly disappointing.

Stimulist [sic], I'm afraid your last sentence sums up my own conclusions, exactly. As for the rest, it illustrates why I am terribly disappointed.

Alice, one of the things that I continue to admire about you is your passion for the rights of HUMAN BEINGS in the face of what are, clearly, terrible crimes being committed against them.

That said, you also have a blind spot. You're not alone in this; each of us is limited by our points of view — all the time, everyday. But it is important to face this, or we risk being handicapped by them.

[Sounder]

cuda is still pouting after being exposed for using a bad analogy on pg. 49

Poor fishy is loosing his teeth. Not to worry, it's probably the radiation and will be hitting us all soon enough.

barracuda wrote:
Okay. Hmmm. Here's an analogy for you - let's say I'm walking down the street, and I see a fair-skinned woman being brutally beaten by a black man. I stop, and start yelling, and other people come running to help, people of all races, and they start pulling the guy off of her. One of the guys helping turns to the blacks in the crowd who are lifting the woman up off the street and says, "Get your hands off her, niggers - it was you people who beat her up in the first place." Whereupon everyone else who has any sense simply looks at the dude and sort of whispers to each other, "What a fucking asshole."

Alice wrote...

What bull. Your analogy is totally inappropriate -- the whole point of the Tony Greenstein types is that THEY'RE the ones appointing themselves 'gate-keepers' and 'owners' of the Palestine solidarity movement and trying to stop OTHERS from helping -- especially those individuals whose contributions are much, much greater than theirs, like Gilad Atzmon, Ken O'Keefe and even Palestinians like Gill Kaffash and Nahida Izzat.

Nahida et al have never tried to stop the Tony Greenstein brigade from engaging in 'solidarity work'; they've just asked them to stop harassing people and trying to take over others' organizations. They've also suggested that, since such groups label themselves "Jews for this, that or the other thing," they might focus more of their efforts on fighting the extreme racism and financial and political support for ongoing war crimes within the Jewish communities -- something, oddly, that the Tony Greensteins are not too interested in doing.

Their arrogance is beyond belief, and they've used underhanded, ugly tactics to take over Britain's largest activist organization, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, (one with the largest membership and an annual budget of around 220,000 pounds) and transform it into an organization whose increasingly hierarchical, secretive, undemocratic leadership: 1) openly proclaims its support for the "two-state solution", without having consulted the PSC's members, thus legitimizing the theft and ethnic cleansing of 78% of Palestine; 2) spends more time and energy harassing and attacking pro-Palestinian activists whom they disagree with, than supporting Palestinian survival and struggle in any concrete way; and alienating current and potential members, thus gradually destroying the organization -- thus fulfilling the objectives of the Israelis, as spelled out in their Reut Institute report.

And equating what AD does with what Alice does? Yaaokay

[American Dream]

The peddlers of right wing racism continue to peddle...right wing racism ...(gasp!)

It seems doubtful that they will change any time soon.

So this thread has been primarily useful for shining a light on those who would wrap themselves in the banner of anti-racism in order to perpetuate racism, wrap themselves in the banner of helping Palestinian liberation in order to hurt it...

Once again:

With "friends" like these, who needs enemies?





.

[compared2what?]

In case you hadn't noticed, "Compared2What?" is a user name, just like "AlicetheKurious"

What is this little factoid supposed to demonstrate? That you aren't real people with real backgrounds and histories? You spend roughly 70% of your time here trading on your Egyptian back-story and closeness to the Arab world, but somehow when it comes to dealing with the reality of compared2what?'s Jew-hood, now we're all just anonymous posters, blank slates whose opinions are nothing if not buttressed by citations, preferably citations which don't happen to conflict with your own well-known authoritativeness on all things Jewish. It apparently never occurs to you that the heinous crap you bandy about here about devious Jews attempting to ruling the planet, or your attempts to spread the blame for the atrocities in Gaza over huge swaths of the Jewish population of the world, or your equivocations regarding the historicity of the holocaust (to mention a mere few examples out of the vastness of your stock-in-trade), might actually be felt on a personal level by a Jewish poster here on the board.

It might be, but it isn't by me, here, now. In this context, I feel it on the level of someone watching life imitate Dr. Strangelove. That constitutes a much higher imperative to me than my personal feelings about Jews or anything else do. And that's why I fight.

I've said as much, repeatedly, from my first post to my last. It's important to me for that to be understood because I think it's objectively important to understand it. I appreciate your sympathy. But it's not helpful. In fact, arguably, it's antisemitic. I wouldn't argue that myself. But such an argument could be made.

Thanks, honey!

[Sounder]

Hey Che, what specifically are you referring to?

Go ahead, give us something more than another exercise in insistent labeling.

[compared2what?]

In case you hadn't noticed, "Compared2What?" is a user name, just like "AlicetheKurious"

What is this little factoid supposed to demonstrate? That you aren't real people with real backgrounds and histories? You spend roughly 70% of your time here trading on your Egyptian back-story and closeness to the Arab world, but somehow when it comes to dealing with the reality of compared2what?'s Jew-hood, now we're all just anonymous posters, blank slates whose opinions are nothing if not buttressed by citations, preferably citations which don't happen to conflict with your own well-known authoritativeness on all things Jewish. It apparently never occurs to you that the heinous crap you bandy about here about devious Jews attempting to ruling the planet, or your attempts to spread the blame for the atrocities in Gaza over huge swaths of the Jewish population of the world, or your equivocations regarding the historicity of the holocaust (to mention a mere few examples out of the vastness of your stock-in-trade), might actually be felt on a personal level by a Jewish poster here on the board.

It might be, but it isn't by me, here, now. In this context, I feel it on the level of someone watching life imitate Dr. Strangelove. That constitutes a much higher imperative to me than my personal feelings about Jews or anything else do. And that's why I fight.

I've said as much, repeatedly, from my first post to my last. It's important to me for that to be understood because I think it's objectively important to understand it. I appreciate your sympathy. But it's not helpful. In fact, arguably, it's antisemitic. I wouldn't argue that myself. But such an argument could be made.

Thanks, honey!

[compared2what?]

Hey Che, what specifically are you referring to?

Go ahead, give us something more than another exercise in insistent labeling.

I'd just like to repeat what I said thirty or forty pages ago about how ad-hominem attacks on AD and Tony Greenstein are not an adequate substitute for reasoned consideration of the larger and more serious issues.

Maybe thinking of it as the I-don't-know-therefore-Tony-Greenstein fallacy will make it more memorable?

Because:

Hey Che

labeling

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Just for starters.

[compared2what?]

Alice wrote...

As for c2w, I suggest a careful re-reading of at least the past 10 pages or so, for those who can stand it, to see how any thoughtful, relevant discussion of Atzmon's main arguments are buried in empty verbiage, diversionary rhetoric, ad hominem fallacies and surrounded by a fog of sophistry that advances neither our knowledge, nor our understanding of Atzmon's analysis nor of anything else.

With reluctance, this is what I see also. After seeing C2W? change the words in what I wrote and using this trigger bait as one way of keeping rhetoric focused on (alleged personal) trivia in preference to dealing with substantive issues,

Cite one single goddamn instance in which it really appeared to you that I'd initiated that and kept it going intentionally. Or even one in which that was the most likely explanation for my posts.

And I really think I deserve a fair-minded response on that one. Because when you're merely challenging what you perceive as my representations of you, that's what I give you. (Incidentally, I'm still wondering why you imputed some kind of messiah-based belief to me that I couldn't even understand well enough to recapitulate here and now. Just out of curiosity.)

As long as you're at it, please also tell me why I would want to keep rhetoric focused on (allegedly personal) trivia, when it's not compatible with my stated aims and interests.

What hidden agenda do you suspect me of harboring, precisely?

I conclude along with Gilad (I imagine) that many of you folk are scared of your shadow. (Especially AD, he is a real scardy-cat wimp.)

Hey. Take a look at this:

(Especially AD, he is a real scardy-cat wimp.)

keeping rhetoric focused on (alleged personal) trivia in preference to dealing with substantive issues,

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

[barracuda]

cuda is still pouting after being exposed for using a bad analogy on pg. 49

Poor fishy is loosing his teeth.

Naw, man, when things go south, I don't bitch about it, really. I don't make any claim to be an authority on most things, or to be infallible like The Anointed One. I know my shortcomings, one of which is I'm really kind of a dick. My understanding is that the condition may be congenital, or could have been caused by my severe and constant exposure to other dicks here on the forum.

It might be, but it isn't by me, here, now.

You'll notice I never actually specified that it did. Psych!

it's antisemitic.

I knew that was coming in some form or another, so I prepared for it by borrowing the anti-"anti-Semite" force-field which everyone else around here uses. It works like this: after inflating it, I throw the switch, and from there on out the actual act of you positing that what I said might be anti-semitic causes you to be revealed as a Zionist. Booyah.

[compared2what?]

I know in my heart that's just how it has to be.

But I still wish it hadn't broken up Kiss.

[barracuda]

Ouch. Talk about reopening old wounds.

[Searcher08]

I'd just like to repeat what I said thirty or forty pages ago about how ad-hominem attacks on AD and Tony Greenstein are not an adequate substitute for reasoned consideration of the larger and more serious issues.

TG, AD & Co ARE a serious issue - maybe not for you or me or anyone on this board, but certainly they have an impact on Palestinians.
See to me it isnt 'ad hominem' to point out observable facts. Exceptionalism is embodied in what AD does - the light is shone everywhere except nearby, the mirror held up everywhere except for oneself. The practical expression of this is the number of threads you post unpicking the ADL, JINSA, AIPAC, while with no irony deciding on the shape of Palestinian Solidarity - I find this position absolutely hypocritical - ready to provide often much needed criticism of other cultures and religions but - silent on home ground. It mirrors Foxman and Walt in the film.

I think it is important to say this because, as you said yourself c2w, much of Atzmon CAN be seen inside a frame or context of provocation. Provocation is a very important process for changing patterns and is closely related to humour. When I observe Atmon's music I see a lot of humour, provocation and pattern breaking. When I observe Greenstein, AD et al, I see a focus on a relentless, humourless codification of what is acceptable and what isnt - seriously it makes me think of Atzmon representing some form of satanic evil they are trying to exorcise as through getting enough 'agreement' it will go away.

I don't know what to say regarding how you respond to AD/TG. As I said before, to me you are giving them a free pass and framing them as just doing what activists do. You portray it as 'that is what activists do', I dont.

The objective evidence is that there is a concerted witch hunt going on in the Palestinian Solidarity movement, which is a very bad thing. This issue is one of suppression of dissent and creation of fear. These are things I am not in favour of and there has been NO argument in this thread against this. I see the TG/AD behaviour as incredibly manipulative - and it comes from power relations where a person in one culture has DECIDED what the appropriate expression of ANOTHER culture should be. If one looks at what THEY do, the type of caustic enquiry / reflection Atzmon provokes is heresy, it is the ultimate Foxmanesque "don't tell me what to think" posture and deserves to be called out as the bogus hypocrisy it is.

[compared2what?]

Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for a single change or even minor modification. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments (Mitzvas) that must be followed strictly.

If you can read and you're aware that there are numerous diverse schools of Jewish practice -- including what are broadly denominated as the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform faiths -- you should know that's not true. After that, the only question is:

Who are you going to trust, Gilad Atzmon or your own lying eyes?

_________________________

I should have just said that in the first place, and left it at that. I regret that I didn't. So I'm doing it now.

[bluenoseclaret]

New York Times Publishes Hate Ad..by Stephen Lendman

"The Times notoriously provides one-sided Israel/Palestine coverage. Jewish rights and all things Israel matter. Palestinians don't count."

Times articles, commentaries, and editorials turn a blind eye to egregious violations of international laws, norms and standards. Endorsing wrong over right is policy.

On April 24, a glaring example was published. The Times shares responsibility with David Horowitz's Freedom Center. With apologies to Alan Jay Lerner, his racist ad could make sailors blush.

It accused the Global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement of promoting hate. It claimed it supports murdering Jewish children.

College professors were also targeted for "us(ing) literature in classes to attack Israel." They endorse BDS. Their names were listed for added emphasis. The ad called for "publicly sham(ing) and condemn(ing them) for the crimes their hatred incites."

It said:

It's "time for supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) to ask themselves what they did to contribute to the atmosphere of hate that spawned" the killing of Jews.

It invoked the Holocaust. It's always used to claim unique Jewish suffering. Others don't count, especially Palestinians under repressive Israeli military occupation for decades.

"The Holocaust," it said, "began with boycotts of Jewish stores and ended with death camps. The calls for a new Holocaust can be heard throughout the Middle East and Europe as well."

Horowitz is a notorious Islamophobe. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) top-featured him in its "Dirty Dozen" Islamophobia list. It called him its "premier promoter." He made himself its "chief publicist."

He's also editor and owner of FrontPage Magazine. It features racist hate and Islamophobia. It calls Occupy Wall Street "the Communist movement reborn." It said planned May Day activities include "terrorism." They intend "violent acts (to) disrupt the US economy."

Its Jihad Watch page might make some racists blush. It's that bad. It's Wall of Truth page runs neck and neck. It calls Brandeis University students for Palestine "stormtroopers." It labels supportive Florida Atlantic University ones "blood libels (and) Israel-hating."

Anything Horowitz writes or says tops everything. His David's Blog is hate-filled. It calls "racial outrage over the tragic death of Trayvon Martin....a national disgrace."

It includes comments like "Muslim countries have no tolerance for others. If you're not Muslim, then they consider you to be a pig or a dog or a monkey. These backward Muslims really are still living in the stone age."

Years ago Horowitz ran ads in college newspapers saying Blacks should be grateful for slavery. More recently, he defended Robert Spencer calling Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik "a man of great courage and decency."

He's off the rails. He menaces free societies. He spews hate in public appearances, print, and on scoundrel TV. He participates as well as promotes. He equates Islam with terrorism. He's not fit for polite company.

The New York Times published his hate ad. Doing so violated its own "Advertising Acceptability Guidelines."

It states in part:

"The Times may decline to accept advertising that is misleading, inaccurate or fraudulent; that makes unfair competitive claims; or that fails to comply with its standards of decency and dignity."

"If an advertisement contains statements or illustrations that are not deemed acceptable, and that The Times thinks should be changed or eliminated, the advertiser will be notified."

"The Times will attempt to negotiate changes with the advertiser; however, if changes cannot be negotiated, the advertisement will be declined by The Times."

Professors Against Hate Ads

The New York Times spurned 148 US college professors. Their April 28 letter to the editor denounced Horowitz's hate ad. The Times wouldn't print it. Why needs explaining. Its full text said:

"We are professors who teach in universities across this country. We are appalled at the advertisement by the David Horowitz Freedom Center (Op-Ed page, April 24, 2012) which compares the international movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel (BDS) to the Holocaust and ancient blood libels. It also asks that professors who support it be 'publicly shamed and condemned.' "

"It grossly distorts the statements of such professors, which are publicly available online and can be verified."

"The Horowitz Center’s advertisement seeks to shut down informed debate. Free speech and thought was a crucial right at stake in 1930s Germany and it remains so today."

"The discussion that took place at the University of Pennsylvania did not use any objectionable language, and included many Jewish participants, including rabbis. Your readers can hear for themselves what was said at www.PennBDS.org.

"It is Horowitz who uses the language of hatred and bigotry. Even those of us who do not support BDS are alarmed at your carrying an advertisement that misinforms and names individuals who do not have the money that Horowtiz has to defend themselves through his chosen medium."

"We hope you will publish this letter to make this point."

They all signed their names. UCLA Professor David Delgado Shorter was among them. His academic freedom's at stake. His department chair rebuked him for posting content criticizing Israel.

So did UCLA Academic Senate chair Professor Andrew Leuchter. Palestinian rights activism is dangerous. Academic and speech freedoms are risked. Careers supporting right over wrong may end.

Shorter signed his name with others. UCLA was well represented. He was joined by Kathleen A. McHugh, Lucy San Pablo Burns, Carole Browner, Michelle Clayton, Nguyen-vo Thu-huong, Shu-mei-Shih, Ismail Poonawala, Gabriel Piterberg, Sondra Hale, and Professor Emerita Karen Brodkin.

Others included Jews. Universities nationwide were represented. They include UC Berkeley, Colombia, Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, Duke, Swarthmore, Barnard, NYU, and University of Illinois.

Doing the right thing is easy. Major media journalists trying seldom get second chances. Repeated offenses end academic careers. Target Israel enough times and it's practically certain.

Sensitive truths in America aren't tolerated. Only wealth, power, and Israeli support are welcome. Some learn the hard way. Their honor and integrity remain intact. What's more important than that.

http://www.uruknet.it/?p=m87816&hd=&size=1&l=e

David Horowitz..........a real racist piece of shit.!

[compared2what?]

I'd just like to repeat what I said thirty or forty pages ago about how ad-hominem attacks on AD and Tony Greenstein are not an adequate substitute for reasoned consideration of the larger and more serious issues.

TG, AD & Co ARE a serious issue - maybe not for you or me or anyone on this board, but certainly they have an impact on Palestinians.

I know you think that. Because you described it as "dire" in a previous post. But I don't know what the impact is, or how it's made. And that's really not self-explanatory.

How do you get from cause to effect? What is the cause? What is the effect?

See to me it isnt 'ad hominem' to point out observable facts. Exceptionalism is embodied in what AD does - the light is shone everywhere except nearby, the mirror held up everywhere except for oneself. The practical expression of this is the number of threads you post unpicking the ADL, JINSA, AIPAC, while with no irony deciding on the shape of Palestinian Solidarity - I find this position absolutely hypocritical - ready to provide often much needed criticism of other cultures and religions but - silent on home ground. It mirrors Foxman and Walt in the film.

I think it is important to say this because, as you said yourself c2w, much of Atzmon CAN be seen inside a frame or context of provocation. Provocation is a very important process for changing patterns and is closely related to humour. When I observe Atmon's music I see a lot of humour, provocation and pattern breaking. When I observe Greenstein, AD et al, I see a focus on a relentless, humourless codification of what is acceptable and what isnt - seriously it makes me think of Atzmon representing some form of satanic evil they are trying to exorcise as through getting enough 'agreement' it will go away.

Please see my remarks below about "I see" statements.

I don't know what to say regarding how you respond to AD/TG. As I said before, to me you are giving them a free pass and framing them as just doing what activists do. You portray it as 'that is what activists do', I dont.

The objective evidence is that there is a concerted witch hunt going on in the Palestinian Solidarity movement, which is a very bad thing.

A direct response to the part of what I just wrote that was effectively an inquiry into whether we were talking about the same objective evidence would be very, very helpful to me in understanding why you say this.

Here it is again:

I haven't called for the de-platforming of anyone either. Furthermore, nobody has.
The authors of the OP wrote a letter (a) stating their reasons for refusing to share a platform with Atzmon (whose right to speak they do not contest); and (b) urging others to do likewise, as a matter of conviction. They reject what he says. And he rejects what they say. As do you. FTM. It's called "disagreement," I believe.

I don't accept your characterization of disagreement. Seriously, I just re-read this again and the above paragraph reads as positively Orwellian to me.

Here is a metaphor
if I said, "I am all in favour of you (c2w) having free speech at the Online Palestinian Forum", but at the same time was relentlessly PM-ing the board owner, the ISP and the local MP with an aim of getting you thrown out of it - that isn't a 'disagreement' and for someone to charcacterise me as receiving 'five minutes of hate' when called on it is not really accurate, is it?

Let's skip the metaphor, since we're dealing with a real instance of what either could be called "de-platforming" or could be called "disagreement." Like I said: They refused to share a platform with him, and urged others to do likewise. So if that's what you mean happened when you say he was de-platformed, then I agree that he was de-platformed. That's not really all that crucial to me.

I was just trying to say that he was de-platformed over a clearly articulated political conflict, by political activists, for explicitly stated political reasons, over which disagreement.has been expressed in the strongest possible terms on both sides.

The aftermath of that has definitely included some of what a fair-minded person might call ad hominem (and not political) argument. But since it's been on both sides, and the playing field is -- afaik -- both reasonably level and platform-free, I assumed that it:

(a) wasn't what you'd meant by de-platforming;
(b) might or might not be what you'd meant by bullying vendetta;
(c) didn't matter whether or not you'd meant it by Stalinist purging, since nothing that had happened was one.

In short:

De-platforming? -- Sure!
Bullying vendetta? -- If you like! And you're not blind to its not having been unilateral!
Stalinist purging! -- I don't see it!

^^If you can live with something close to that, we got no quarrel there.

Please tell me in what way that's not what happened and/or isn't what activists do (or should do). If you think it's not.

This issue is one of suppression of dissent and creation of fear. These are things I am not in favour of and there has been NO argument in this thread against this. I see the TG/AD behaviour as incredibly manipulative - and it comes from power relations where a person in one culture has DECIDED what the appropriate expression of ANOTHER culture should be.

Let's talk about "I see" statements.

If you see it that way because it is that way, you should be able to point to objective evidence of its being so.

If you just see it that way because that's how you see it, you're obviously still just as entitled to your views as anyone else. But you can't reasonably expect others to defer to your perspective, simply on those grounds. So it's not really enough, in this case, to say "I see TG doing this, that, and the other" without pointing to a single example of him doing anything that both you and/or Gilad Atzmon don't also appear to be doing, to an impartial observer.

There's a distinction.

If one looks at what THEY do, the type of caustic enquiry / reflection Atzmon provokes is heresy, it is the ultimate Foxmanesque "don't tell me what to think" posture and deserves to be called out as the bogus hypocrisy it is.

Yeah. You know what might help me understand some of that? If I saw where you were getting the idea that Atzmon had provoked something besides the angry reiteration of pre-existing strongly opposing views about (among other things) a bloody and horrible violent conflict. In anybody.

Example?