Google+ Followers

Saturday, 25 December 2010

Zionists Defend Ahava Staff Who Accuses Jews of Being ‘Christ Killers’

Richard Millett on accusing Jews as 'Christ Killers':
‘don’t blame her for an off-the-cuff remark’

A most interesting discussion has been taking place on the blog of Richard Millett, who styles himself as a researcher/consultant (i.e. propagandist) for Zionism. As we revealed, an Ahava worker accused Jewish protestors of being ‘Christ killers’ and when asked to explain this remark she said that it was 'because you are Jewish’.

Under Comments, amidst the usual personal attacks and ad hominems, it is revealing that despite their normally pretended outrage over ‘anti-semitism’, these ardent Zionists, like Zionism historically, considers anti-semitism normal, even understandable. Indeed the most astute Zionists have welcomed anti-semitism as ‘encouraging’ Jews to emigrate to Israel.

It is clear that the real venom of these and other Zionist activists is reserved for anti-Zionism. Anti-semitism is merely a cynical allegation to be made against their political opponents. Their reactions to the picket of Ahava, a shop that sells goods, stolen property, from the Occupied Territories, is to excuse the remarks of an anti-semitic shop assistant. This more than anything shows them in their true colours.

In times like this I usually turn to Norman Cohn’s Pursuit of the Millenium which is as good a compendium of historical anti-semitism, albeit lacking a materialist analysis, as one is going to get. What does he say about the accusation that Jews are Christ Killers?
‘For generations the laity had been accustomed to hear the Jews bitterly condemned from the pulpit - as perverse, stubborn and ungrateful, as bearers also of a monstrous hereditary guilt for the murder of Christ.’ p.77 (my emphasis)
Or perhaps we should turn to Abe Foxman, who himself has quite a good record of covering up for anti-semitism, e.g. awarding Ronald Reagan in 1994 with the ‘Torch of Liberty’, after his 1985 declaration at Bitburg that the Waffen SS were just as much victims of Nazism as the concentration camp victims. [Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, pp. 30-31]

What did Abe have to say about the ‘Christ Killer’ jibe? In his talk, ‘Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ:" Could It Trigger Anti-Semitism?’ Foxman, speaking as the National Director of the ADL on February 6, 2004 at Palm Beach, Florida stated that:
‘For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ…. For hundreds of years those four words - acted out, spoken out, sermonized out - inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions. Hitler, in 1934, visited the Oberammergau Passion Play, and when he left, he proclaimed (and I paraphrase): "The whole world needs to see this Passion Play, for then they will understand why I despise the Jewish people." Many during the Holocaust who killed Jews from Monday to Friday went to church on Sunday and there was no disconnect for them, because, after all, all they were doing was killing "Christ killers."
Now it is possible to argue with the connection between Hitler and Christ Killing. Hitler’s anti-semitism didn’t depend on traditional Christian anti-semitism. On the contrary, for him Jesus was a Jew, hence why he treated the German Catholic and Protestant churches with suspicion, despite their unerring attempts to reach a modus vivendi. The church was seen as a rival, not a partner and Hitler’s words should be seen as little more than an attempt to ingratiate himself with traditional Christian feeling.

Nonetheless, the import of what Foxman says is true. Historically the idea that Jews were the killers of Christ was the source of rivers of Jewish blood. Along with the medieval Easter blood libel, it was the most poisonous and dangerous defamation of Jewry.

But like dogs going back to their vomit, it is no surprise that the Zionists on Millett’s blog have shown their true colours, eager to excuse real, traditional, genuine anti-semitism in the cause of Zionism.

But first dear readers, a bit of light entertainment. Jonathan Hoffman co-Chair of the Zionist Federation is no theoretician or philosopher. His acquaintance with even the most basic facts of Zionist history is superficial at best, but even he surpasses himself on this post.
‘Greenstein: “Israel was predicated on the idea that Jews didn’t belong in the diaspora. ” He has it completely the wrong way round. Israel was the Jewish response to antisemitism, not the Jewish desire not to live alongside non-Jews. His logic is straight from Soviet Russia. Hardly surprising from an unreconstructed Trot. Jonathan Hoffman

Firstly of course he misreads what I said. It was not that Zionism (Israel as he calls it) was not the response to anti-semitism, it clearly was. But that it justified itself by saying that Jews did not, in any event, belong in the diaspora. It is tedious to have to tear his argument into tiny shreds but since this is the festive season…
In Paris..., I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism.
Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Lowenthall, Gollancz, London 1958 p.6.

Or how about Heinrich Class, founder of the Pan German League, who on Hitler’s’ elevation to power was made an honorary member of the Reichstag, wrote:
Those who regard the Jews as a foreign race, which despite its participation in all the products of our culture, did not become German... must rejoice over the fact that among the Jews themselves the nationalist movement called Zionism is gaining more and more adherents „ One must take ones' hat off to the Zionists, they admit openly and honestly that their people are a folk of its own kind whose basic characteristics are immutable.. they also declare openly that a true, assimilation of the Jewish aliens to the host nations would be impossible according to the natural laws of race,.. the Zionists confirm what the enemies of the Jews, the adherents of the racial theory have always asserted,... German and Jewish nationalists are of one opinion in regard to the indestructibility of the Jewish race.”
If I Were the Kaiser, 1912, D Prymman (pseudonym).

Or Jacob Klatzkin, a Zionist ‘radical’ and co-editor of Die Welt, the Zionist paper and co-editor, with Nahum Goldmann, of the Encyclopedia Judaica who wrote that:

‘We are in a. word naturally foreigners. We are an alien nation in your midst and we want to remain one. An unbridgeable chasm yawns between you and us. A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot... We recognise a national unity of Diaspora Jews no matter in which land they may reside... no boundaries can restrain us in... pursuing our own Jewish policy. 'Krisis und Entscheidung in Judentum', Berlin 1921, p118
Or Herzl’s Deputy, Max Nordau, who in an interview with the premier French anti-Semite, Eduard Drumont’s La Libre Parole, in 1903 stated that:
(Zionism) is not a question of religion but exclusively of race and there is noone with whom I am in greater agreement on this -position than M Drumont. C Parker/Pottins Labour Review, see also Herzl, Desmond Stewart.
For Moses Hess, the first political Zionist:
‘The Germans hate the religion of the Jews less than they hate their race -they hate the peculiar faith of the Jews less than their peculiar noses... reform, conversion, education and emancipation, none of these open the gates of society to the German Jew, hence his desire to deny his racial origin.’ Rome & Jerusalem, p.49.
Katzkin explained that
‘The contribution of our enemies is in the continuance of Jewry in Eastern Europe. One ought- to appreciate the national service which the Pale of Settlement performed for us... we ought to be thankful to our oppressors that they closed the gates of assimilation to us and took care that our people were concentrated and not dispersed.’ J Klatzkin 'Crisis' Decision! p.62 cited in Hermann op. cit. p. 205.
As the pro-Zionist historian, Christopher Sykes observed of Nahum Sokolow, who briefly took over the Presidency of the ZO from Weizmann, he spoke
“with contempt of the sentimentalities of the 'Judeophiles' as. he called them, and he praised Sir Mark Sykes because he like Balfour, harboured no sort of illusions about Jews. The early Zionists were somewhat too liable in fact, to share the ideas of anti-Semites about the mischievous role which the Jews as a displaced people tended to play in the world... Lord Boothby has told the writer of an occasion when “he was listening to' speeches at a Zionist Congress with' Dr Weizzman. The venerable President turned to him and whispered 'This is the sort of speech that brings out all my latent anti-Semitism.’ Sykes op. cit. pp. 268/9 fn. 4.
In the early 50s a columnist in Davar, the Histadrut newspaper wrote:
I shall not be ashamed to confess that if I had the power, AS I HAVE: THE WILL, I would select a score of efficient young men... and I would send them to the countries where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction (!). The task of these young men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jewish and plague Jews with anti-Semitic slogans such as 'Bloody Jews', Jews go to Palestine' and similar intimacies. I can vouch that the results, in terms of a considerable immigration to Israel would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought by thousands of emissaries, who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears. (A Lillienthall, 'The Other Side of the Coin' New York, p. 84 cited in David Hirst, the Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 160.).
Nor was this just empty talk. Exactly what is described above happened in Iraq in 1950-1, leading to the exodus of most of Iraqi Jewry.

Some idea of the reaction of Jewry to the First Zionist Congress was the statement of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, for whom the Zionists:
‘do not benefit but infinitely harm our Jewish brethren, where they are still persecuted by confirming the assertion of their enemies that the Jews are foreigners in the countries in which they are at home and of -which they are everywhere the most loyal and. patriotic citizens.’
Herzl too, of course, had taken on board the racial stereotypes.
‘I took a look at the Paris Jews and saw a family likeness in their faces: bold, misshapen noses, furtive and cunning eyes.’ Complete Diaries p.11.
And in response to Hoffman’s assertion that Israel had nothing to do with the Zionist (not Jewish, since the majority of Jews were not Zionists at the time) desire not to live among Jews, one should note that Herzl wrote in the privacy of Diaries he thought would remain private:
‘I understand what anti-Semitism is about. We Jews have maintained ourselves, even if through no fault of our own, as a foreign body among’ the various nations. In the ghettos we take on a number of anti-social qualities...Our character has been corrupted by oppres-sion and it must be restored.’ Complete Diaries, p. 9.
A ‘foreign body’ among the nations – and that isn’t a desire not to live among non-Jews? But someone who believes that a put-down is to accuse you of being ‘straight from Soviet Russia. Hardly surprising from an unreconstructed Trot.’ is not someone who is terribly clued up historically!

What then is the response of Millett’s posters to the outrageous comments of an Ahava staff member? A demand that she should be sacked? The wearing of sackcloth and ashes, a gnashing and wailing of teeth, a belated recognition that Zionism is leading towards a disaster for Jews outside as well as inside Israel? I’m afraid not. They actually justify the comments.

And what does Richard Millett, whose blog it is, have to say about the incident. Richard I know is very concerned normally about any manifestation of anti-semitism. One would therefore expect him to be up in arms about what was said. Not, however on this occasion:
‘To intimidate a woman on her own while she is trying to do her job and then put her on youtube is as low as I have known the BDS movement to go… far…. As you can see at the beginning of the video the woman is angry that the activists are now specifically targeting her! Her apparent remark about Jews killing Jesus (although, no where in the footage do we actually hear her say that) is a remark to a male, Jewish activist who spends large proportions of his sad life hanging around outside the Ahava shop. I don’t blame her for an off-the-cuff remark when confronted by a group of bullies.’
So there we have it. It is an ‘off the cuff remark’. If only David Irving had had Richard Millett to represent him on the minor matter of denying there were any gas chambers, in his libel suit against Penguin, all would have been fine! I can imagine him now: ‘Your Honour (Mr Justice Grey) my client Mr Irving doesn’t deny that some Jews died of disease and illness and even, dare I say it, wanton cruelty, but we cannot accept the suggestion that the minor matter of an off-the-cuff remark about poison gas, means he is a holocaust denier. That is merely a technical detail.’

Roger was also perturbed at the fact that ‘That clip is lifted right out of context and too short to make much sense of. I’m very curious to hear the whole exchange. Surely no Jew would accuse another of deicide…the age old libel that spurred many to actively assist the Nazis with the Holocaust. So my guess is that she is a Christian and that subscribing to this view and at the same time working in Ahava must cause a corrosive cognitive dissonance.’

Aha. Cognitive dissonance no less. The idea of holding 2 conflicting ideas at the same time and feeling uncomfortable. Perhaps supporting the ‘Jewish’ State of Christ Killers is causing her problems. No need to fear Madam. Lots of anti-Semites have supported Zionism before without any pangs of conscience.

Following up the psychological angle, Silke has another theory. ‘my bet as to her remark is that she was being ironic in a weird round-about way.’ Weird it certainly is but Silke has a confession to make: ‘at least I can imagine myself in a scene in which an Israel-hating Jew could seduce me into thinking it might be a clever remark in the context and I am an agnostic.’ Quite. Israeli hating Jews do seem to bring out the best in Zionists, it has to be admitted, though quite why her agnosticism is relevant I’m not sure.

Sharon Klaff is more direct and to the point. After all ‘The girl is just a shopworker under tremendous strain from these very ugly Jew hating thugs, not least the dumpy little twerp, who is a self hating Jew, harrassing her in the video clip. If she did say that, and we can’t be sure as it is just a clip out of context, then she must have been totally unnerved by the nauseating taunting!’ And the excuses just keep coming.

Jonathan Hoffman then leaps into action to point the finger at the culprit, no not the anti-semitic Zionist shopworker but Bruce Levy who took the film of her remarks: ‘What a piece of dreck.’

Hoffman has it in for the protestors complaining that one Alex Seymour ‘speeded up the film of me speaking about Israel in order to make me look demented. Ignorant arse.’ But Jonathan, there is no need to speed up any film to make you demented when your normal angry tones are more than a give away. And note the ritual abuse of our favourite Zionist.

FTP, who I’ve had my disagreements with before concerning Gilad Atzmon, gets it absolutely right on this occasion. All he has to do is repeat what was said and Millett’s comments!

‘Bruce Levy: “Why did you say I killed Jesus?”
Shop Assistant: “Because you’re Jewish”
Richard Millett: “I don’t blame her for an off-the-cuff remark when confronted by a group of bullies.”
I dare say you’d be equally dismissive of an anti-semitic comment from a protestor Richard ’ To which RM replies that he is being defamed, though for the life of I can't understand how quoting someone can be held to be defamation!

After an admittedly failed attempt to inject some sense of reality, Richard Millett tells me: ‘Tony, this isn’t boycotting a shop, this is targeting and bullying the staff. There is a huge difference. How on earth can Zionism be anti-Semitic when Zionism is the creation of a state where Jews can live and develop their own lives? It’s like saying Britain is anti-British.’

Now maybe I missed them, but I didn’t see the leaflets entitled ‘Lets go and bully the staff at Ahava when we’re buying their fragrant perfumes’. Maybe I just missed it. And as for Zionism not being anti-semitic, merely the creation of a Jewish state, well in that case everyone from Rosenberg to Eichmann via Hitler wasn’t anti-semitic! Actually this is what their arch supporter in the USA, evangelist John Hagee says.

Hoffman however isn’t happy with me. ‘I didn’t ‘pretend it didn’t happen’ , Trot Moron.’ Note the subtlety of the riposte! Clearly another Oscar Wilde in the making. No, strictly he’s right. He didn’t pretend it didn’t happen, he merely ignored it, unlike the occasion when he falsely claimed he subject to anti-semitic barracking that didn’t occur.

Mostly Harmless is having none of it though. Noting that there is ‘An anti-semite working for Ahava’ he looks forward ‘to the pro-Israeli crowd moving over to the other side, quoting from the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism until they’re blue in the face and demand her sacking. What more of a slam dunk do you need, blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. Come on guys I’ll be right behind you on this one.’

Oh dear. I don’t think MH gets it somehow. But RM, leaps to the anti-Semite’s defence: ‘Mostly, I would like to see how you would react after being bullied repeatedly. The odd ironic comment aimed at a waster would not go amiss, i’m sure.’ And of course, when your back is to the wall, reach out for Hamas: ‘this is all a bit rich coming from you and your colleagues who love Hamas, the most anti-Semitic “organisation” since Nazism.’ Utterly meaningless and untrue of course. There’ve been many anti-semitic organisations since Nazi such as Michal Kaminski’s ‘Law & Justice Party’ but since he is an ardent Zionist we can’t say such things here, even though he opposed any apology for the massacre at Jedwabne of hundreds of Jews burnt alive in 1941.
Mostly, I would like to see how you would react after being bullied repeatedly. The odd ironic comment aimed at a waster would not go amiss, i’m sure.’ Richard Millett on an Ahava staff member's accusation that Jews are Christ-killers.
Silke then intervenes to say that ‘to evoke that image against a Jew who works for the destruction of Israel… may be owed to a bit of roundabout logic but in the little we know of the context definitely not anti-semitic.’ She loves her roundabouts does Silke but she is definite that the remark isn’t anti-semitic.

As MH notes ‘if you get harassed & bullied repeatedly it’s OK to be anti-semitic? Are you serious? Sounds like you have explained why Hamas is the way it is.’ To which Millett replies, in his normal logical fashion, that ‘Well, that sounds like you support Hamas to me.’

Yoni is outraged that ‘instead of fighting antisemites, you dig and dig until you find one Jew who has made a remark when under pressure by bullies, and when taken out of context and truncated might conceivably be construed as a failed attempt at sarcasm. From that, you ‘deduce’ that she is an antisemite.’

Ah yes, accusing someone Jewish of being a ‘christ-killer’ is merely ‘a failed attempt at sarcasm’.

 As Joe notes, ‘This is about as low as it gets for the Ahava fans, willing to exuse anti-semitism just because it was directed at a pro-Palestinian activist. What do you really care about, anti-semtism or defending Israel?’ But Richard Millett QC has a ready response. ‘We never actually see her speak those alleged words.’ Actually we have never seen anyone dying in the gas chambers but only the most rabid anti-Semites deny they existed. But as Joe again points out it is crystal clear that happened:

Bruce Levy: “Why did you say I killed Jesus?”
Shop Assistant: “Because you’re Jewish”

Actually MH has the most reasonable explanation! ‘Maybe she was referring to a different Jesus?’ But RM rises to the occasion, just like the Queens Counsel he should have been: ‘Well, she has never said this to me and I’m Jewish. People can easily put words into someone’s mouth under pressure. If she did say it, which we haven’t seen, then she was probably being ironic.’

So the woman in question never said it to RM. Now what did Himmler say in his famous speech at Poznan in October 1943 to the assembled SS officers? He complained that each of the 80 million Germans “has one decent Jew of his own” whom he praises and wishes to spare.' (documents of IMT) Cited in Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader.

But if this wasn’t enough, one David Guy tells us that ‘I feel sorry for the lady. Has no one here ever said something under pressure or high emotions that they wouldn’t normally have said – and then regretted it later? … When Achva hires staff it doesn’t demand an experience in diplomacy, ability to think on one’s feet, academic cred or for that matter loyalty to the Jewish religion and/or Israel. So long as one’s political/religious opinions don’t damage the shop, for example, by causing tension with fellow staff or customers they are your own.’ Well out of the horse’s mouth. Virulent anti-semitism is no problem!

And if it couldn’t get worse, then one Jim Wass, a “nasty Christian fundamentalist” leaps to the defence of people like himself. ‘There are possibly millions of us who actively stand with Israel. Below is a part of the definition of fundamentalism.I do not know any “nasty ones” !!! Fundamentalism had multiple roots in British and American theology of the 19th century[8]. One root was Dispensationalism, … An important sign is the rebirth of Israel, support for which is the centerpiece of Fundamentalist foreign policy.’ David admits that during the Rapture, when Jesus’s believers go to heaven, the rest of us, including the Jews, will perish! Clearly he is a reliable Zionist ally!

But David at least has his feet on the earth (at least temporarily). ‘BTW This thread shows the BDS group have scored a success by dividing their opponents. Richard Millet. Are you in a position to ask the manager or the shop assistant for a reply?’ Which Yoni is having none of ‘Anyone who starts screaming about SS uniforms in this context is not in the same corner as me, nor do I want them in my corner.’ Quite.

But at least Isca Stieglitz is a lone Zionist who confesses to ‘trying to get my head around what a strange exchange it was. If she did say it, then it’s totally unacceptable and my question would be “Why was that the first insult to come into your head and if you feel that way, why do you work for Ahava?” I’m hoping it wasn’t a Mel Gibson moment! I’d like to hear what her explanation is.' A very interesting question but not one that is likely to be answered.

So when Joe asks, quite reasonably, ‘can you give an example when the anti-Ahava campaign has been been violent? Who was hurt and how badly?’ our sage Yoni, to whom any anti-semitism is acceptable as long as it comes from Zionist supporters, informs us that ‘You are so dumb it hurts to read you.’ Presumably his whole life must be spent hurting.

At which point I intervene to suggest that ‘When you’re in a hole stop digging!’ and making the point to JH, who is after all the leading public representative of the Zionist Federation that ‘No Jonathan you didn’t ignore what had happened you just didn’t say anything about it, preferring to attack the person who captured the anti-semitic comments on camera! To most people that would be deliberately ignoring.’

I then suggest that ‘the allegation of being harrassed is a ‘strange ‘explanation’ anyway. We all have our ripostes when we are angry. Jonathan Hoffman has several of them. I’m a ‘trot moron’ or sometimes a stalinist or just a self-hater etc. etc. But when someone comes out with racist comments when they have been antagnised it shows that underneath they are racists. Why call someone a ‘black bastard’ because they offended you when you wouldn’t call someone a ‘white bastard’ for a similar offence?’

I also pointed out that the argument that someone can’t be an anti-Semite because they’re supporters of Israel has long been debunked. ‘But that’s the point. Israel was predicated on the idea that Jews didn’t belong in the diaspora. As Pinhas Rosenberg, Israel’s first Minister of Justice wrote,
‘Palestine is an institute for fumigating Jewish vermin’ (Classic zionism and modern anti-semitism: Parallels and influences (1883-1914),
Journal of Israeli History Vol. 4:2.’

As this is a key Zionist academic journal it’s a bit difficult to debunk so Zionists usually ignore such comments.

But Richard Millet is adamant. ‘We didn’t see her say that, Tony! We don’t know how she said it, why she said it and when she said it. She was probably playing devil’s advocate to shut Bruce up who was standing on her doorstep.'

The devil’s advocate. So she was deliberately putting across an opinion she didn’t believe in. Well that’s a new one. I once played devil’s advocate in took part in a debate in my Jewish school whose theme was that Zionism was racist. I came out convinced! She seemed already convinced.

Yoni, who it has to be said isn’t over endowed with grey cells, retorts ‘How old are you, TG? About 12?’. I see, it’s all a bit childish these anti-semitic allegations. I’ll remember that one next time. Apparently he is an overexcited Israeli emigre and therefore aware of the fact that the more anti-semitism there is the more Jewish emigration to Israel there is.

To Weggis, who confesses to being a ‘gentile’ ‘I have to take issue with Mr Greenstein. Viz: “But when someone comes out with racist comments when they have been antagnised it shows that underneath they are racists.” No it does not. We are all products of social conditioning.’ Which is of course as true as it is irrelevant.

The Nazis too were products of their time. So is Nick Griffin. Does that excuse them? ‘The use of the term “Nigger” is very different when used by the KKK as opposed to someone who is unaware of the background and connotations of that word. We know nothing of the lady in the video. Let he who is without sin…….’ Well of course the KKK’s use of ‘nigger’ was different in that they held the power of life and death. But anyone who uses, given that history, is deliberately expressing a deeply racist attitude that Weggis is condoning. And by the same ‘logic’ none of us can condemn any inquity! I think the parable was about stoning a woman, not making crass anti-semitic comment!

As is normal on these occasions, Jonathan Hoffman can be relied on to provide, if not illumination plenty of heat:

‘Listen Greenstein, you mendacious Trot scum. She and the other shop workers have been harassed mercilessly for months by Chief Renegade Jew Bruce and his henchmen.’

Note that. ‘Chief Renegade Jew Bruce’. If you didn’t know better you might have thought it was the late John Tyndall or Julius Streicher speaking. It seems that the Ahava shopworker is not the only Zionist who, when under pressure, resorts to anti-Semitism.

'Her first language is not English. She is a shopworker – not a sad manipulative Trot blogger like you. Her livelihood is being threatened.’ Well actually the pogromists of Russia also used to believe that the Jews threatened their livelihood. So they presumably are now excused too?

Yoni has an answer though. “unless the clip was edited to make her appear to say words that didn’t come out of her mouth–then she did say, “Because you’re Jewish” in response to the @$hole’s question, and that doesn’t look good.” ‘Why? Why can’t it be meant sarcastically? I have no problem at all with her saying it.' (my emphasis)

As Richard Millett explains: ‘it isn’t like she is going out there standing on a platform with a megaphone …. One girl possibly makes a faux pas under pressure, yet the fascist left all support Hamas!' Ah yes, it is now a ‘faus pas’ a mere social blunder. How the anti-Semites of old must be kicking themselves that they didn’t have the likes of Yoni and Richard Millett to defend them. David Irving eat your heart out.

And someone by the name of Harvey chimes in wondering ‘How come the concern and crocodile tears over this supposed anti semitic comment.’ And JH, who has avoided all comment on the question of Jews as Christ-Killers informs us that ‘I hear the scum are there from 5-7 each evening. Please be there today, tomorrow and Friday as an antidote to their intent to poison pre-Xmas shoppers.’

At least Isca Stieglitz is prepared to state that ‘Either way, she shouldn’t have gone down this road and the protesters shouldn’t be intimidating and harassing her in this way.’ Of course there was no harassment but even if there had been, the question why she resorted to traditional anti-semitism is not explained or even commented upon by the likes of Hoffman.

Yoni however is having none of it. “Either way, she shouldn’t have gone down this road” Nonsense. That’s easy to say when you are not placed in a position of being subject to violent and abusive intimidation, which causes you to be highly stressed and physically fearful.’ Quite.

At which point one of our peace-loving Zionists, the ones complaining of violence and harassment, one Empress Trudy no less, declares that ‘The people who work there need to repeatedly pepper spray these morons.’

Adam intervenes to try and deal with the point I made: ‘Greenstein also makes the nonsensical accusation that any comment said in anger shows your true feelins. No it doesn’t. Are you telling me, Greenstein, that you have never said something when you were feeling vulnerable and hurt and angry, that you didn’t mean?’ and further ‘I’d also like to say that Greenstein’s cultural vandalism against the musicians of the Jerusalem Quartet was one of the most disgusting spectacles I have ever heard of. What kind of lunatic hatred fuels someone to scream abuse at a string quartet?’

Of course disruption of concerts was standard fare for the Soviet Jewish campaigners once! But yes, clearly my offence was far greater than resurrecting the Christ-killer libel. Of course you say things when feeling vulnerable, hurt and angry. But why should they be racist unless you hold racist views? There is an old Talmudic saying that what was in the throat of a sober man is on the lips of a drunkard.

As Debbie Fink then points out ‘Had the shop assistant not said it to a Jew critical of Israel, they would be condemning it, and had she said it to one of them, they would have gone straight to the police.’

At which point the comments mostly degenerate into idiotic insults. Praise the Lord then for a genuine intellectual contribution from Silke ‘Arab Untermenschen Get your history right, Troll! I am German i.e. by birth highly qualified to pass judgment on who is entitled to Untermenschen-dom.’ Well we’ll let that little bit of racism pass us bay. ‘Arabs aren’t, they were considered to be pure-blooded enough to join the master-race as equals.’

In fact Silke, despite her German credentials, couldn’t be more wrong. As Francis Nicosia, an acknowledged expert in the field, and a Zionist, noted regarding Heinrich Wolf, the German consult in Palestine before the war:

‘Wolff’s avid support for Zionist aims in Palestine was reinforced by a contemptuous view of the Arabs as a people and the aims of Arab nationalism in Palestine.’ Which was exactly why the Nazis never supported the Arab Revolt of 1936-9. Hitler, the expected savior, had in reality the settled conviction that Arabs were Untermenschen and he had no intention of doing them any favors. Even the Facts of Israel site cites an article by David Pryce-Jones from the National Review, which whilst trying to portray Arabs as Nazi sympathisers, nonetheless admits that ‘On that racial ladder of his, Arabs occupied a servile place, held in much the same contempt as the Jews.’ Or see Gilbert Achcar’s recent ‘The Arabs and the Holocaust’ p.151.
At least she tried. Readers might ask why I’ve gone into such detail. The answer is, because when a genuine manifestation of anti-semitism rears its ugly head, especially when it is said by someone who is pro-Israeli, then without exception, Zionists will leap to defend it. And therein lies the moral.

And at this point a Happy Xmas/Chanukah/Heathen Yuletide to you all!

Tony Greenstein


Richard Millett said...

If i was this woman I would sue for slander. Your whole argument is based on something you haven't seen her say. Your behaviour is bullying and shameful. You are the ones inventing anti-Semitism just for political gain. Call yourself the left? Do me a favour.....

joe said...

fantastic piece tony, I did one on this topic as well for the ISM website, really is the pro-ahava crowds lowest moment!

Tony Greenstein said...

Thanks Joe. I enjoyed it.


i. You are not this woman.

ii. If you sued for slander you would look even more foolish as slander is for the spoken word. Libel is for the written word.

iii. There is no record of a written order for the Holocaust and no tape of any verbal order. Holocaust deniers use this to deny the holocaust. Your argument is similar.

iv. No I didn't hear her say that Jews are christ killers. I merely heard her confirm that she had said it. How pathetic of you to hide behind the fact that the person recording wasn't fast enough when he established beyond doubt that she did say it.

v. WHy do you Zionists always justify anti-Semitic comments if it's directed at anti-Zionists? We wouldn't justify it against you. It suggests that 'anti-Semitism' is a ploy and a tool and that you couldn't care less about it. Race and nation uber alles.

A merry Yuletide

richard millett said...

i. I agree.
ii. I know, but in this case it could be slander also.
iii. Your parallel is disproportionate.
iv. Your friends justify Hamas.
v. Thank you. You too.

Tony Greenstein said...

There would be no point in suing for slander if you are suing for libel because slander is far weaker and the damages far less.

Actually you might be right in so far as Justice Eadie has made a significant ruling that internet libels are generally to be considered as slander, precisely because the damages are less.

My parallel may be disproportionate but it is a comparable analogy. We didn't hear her, because the recorder wasn't switched on in time to anticipate what was coming but she confirmed it anyway, so there is absolutely no doubt what she said.

You are becoming a stuck record. Hamas represents a people who are under siege and constant attack. They were virtually created by Israel, which supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza as a counterpart to secular Palestinian nationalism. You Zionists wanted them precisely so you could defame the Palestinians. In fact people voted for Hamas, you aren't anti-semitic in any event, but who reflect anti-Semitism at worst, because they stood up to the occupation.

And in any event no one I know supports Hamas. they support the right of the Palestinians to vote for and support who they want. A basic democratic principle you don't understand.

I can't recall anything about Christ-killing from Hamas. But do tell me, why don't you just condemn these remarks? What prevents you from saying, without any caveats, that what the woman said was unacceptable and wrong?

It seems to me Richard that you will accept anything, however odious, if it comes from supporters of Israel.

richard millett said...

Because even if she said what she is supposed to have said i doubt she meant it to have been an anti-Semitic comment.

All she might have been suggesting is that Bruce, who is Jewish, is a traitor for trying to do to the Jewish state the same as some think the Jews did to another Jew.

Of course I would condemn anti-Semitism. I condemn Hamas who expressly state that they are anti-Semites (and who you can't bring yourself to condemn even if they were democratically elected).

But, as you well know, the charge of anti-Semitism is a very serious slur which I very rarely make, even against your side. The same applies to this woman.

richard millett said...

As for racism what about you?:

"Silke one can understand since she probably has Nazi pedigree, but the rest of you?"

Where's your blog on you being a hypocrite about racism?


Anonymous said...

'No I didn't hear her say that Jews are christ killers. I merely heard her confirm that she had said it. '

But she didn't.

She may have said the cameraman killed Christ.

She clearly doesn't feel her Israeli Jewish employers killed Christ, whether because they are Jewish or otherwise.

She is making a distinction. It may be wrong, immoral or inaccurate. But it is a distinction.

That Zionism is anti-Christ is a commonplace among pro-Palestinian Muslim and Christian nationalist supporters.

How are Deborah Fink's Christmas Carols not conveying the message that Zionism is anti-Christ?

'WHy do you Zionists always justify anti-Semitic comments if it's directed at anti-Zionists?'

This from the man who tried to incite Muslims to hate British Jews by smearing them as EDL supporters...

Tony Greenstein said...

It is interesting to note the tortuous justifications being made for the woman in question.

Now Richard Millett, unlike Jonathan Hoffman, is not stupid. So when he states that:

'Because even if she said what she is supposed to have said i doubt she meant it to have been an anti-Semitic comment.

Of course not. It was a friendly comment about how nice it is to be Jewish! There is no other possible interpretation of the comment, one of the most vile in the book of anti-Semitism and for you to even try to justify it is disgraceful Richard.

Note that when Gilad Atzmon started accusing certain Jews of being christ-killers etc. I had absolutely no hesitation in pursuing the scumbag, even though certain Zionists like Mikey and Taube saw fit to have drinkies with him.

For years I pursued and harried Atzmon. I had no hesitation in condemning his remarks.

But when it comes to this woman, you make the most puerile and pathetic justifications.

And of course Hamas is used as some form of bogey. If you were in the slightest sincere about Hamas, who have never said they are anti-Semitic and under whom Jews like Amira Hass have lived and who have always greeted Jews like Uri Avnery, then why did Shin Bet go out of their way to encourage their formation?

But the reality is that Zionism and most of its adherents, as the posters prove, have no objection whatsoever to anti-Semitism. They work with them at all levels including the European Parliament. It is anti-Zionism they hate and with good measure.

Hence why they demonstrated with and alongside the EDL outside Ahava.

And then Richard Millett states that

'All she might have been suggesting is that Bruce, who is Jewish, is a traitor for trying to do to the Jewish state the same as some think the Jews did to another Jew.'

That was the Nazi attitude to German anti-Zionist Jews (the majority!). Hence why they gave support to the Zionist movement. We are traitors to something we never felt any loyalty to!! Just like Julian Assange I guess.

Want to dig any deeper Richard?

As for Silke. She is German, justifies anti-Semitism and so it's a fair comment to suggest that family members were probably pro-Nazi.

Racist? Wasn't that what was said about the German hijacker of the Israeli plane to Entebbe, that she was a Nazi because she was German? You'll have to get up a bit earlier to catch me out on this one Richard!!!

Deborah Fink said...

Well done for exposing Millett and his fellow commentators. Millett has exposed himself even further by commenting in your comments section! He really is going out of his way to make excuses for this women - something he would never do had these comments not been made by someone supporting an Israeli shop and had they been directed at a Zionist.

And he cannot answer your points. When you point out that she confirmed that she had said Jews are Christ killer, Millett says, 'Your friends justify Hamas'. What has that got to do with it? Then he doesn't deny that he's justifying anti-semitism.

I suspect that 'anonymous' is Hoffman. For some reason, he's not put his name.

Tony Greenstein said...

Yes Millett seems determined to dig himself in a whole. Accusing someone of anti-Semitism for saying Jews are 'christ killers' is apparently 'shameful'. But opposing the sale of stolen dead sea products is 'anti-Semitic'.

They would certainly have done a better job of writing Alice Through the Looking Glass. But which one is the mad hatter?

Yes Hoffman is quiet because the ZF have told him to shut up and even he has managed to understand that on a topic like this he mustn't say anything. Problem is that he has intervened in the debate to attack those of us who did criticise anti-Semitism, so he is hung by his own petard regardless.

Yes my suspicions were the same as yours.

richard millett said...

I'd love to dig deeper, Tony, but seeing as you are prone to exagerrated explanations there is no point. I will stop with your racist comment of singling out a German as being a Nazi because they are German, while the rest of us don't get so labelled by you because we aren't German.

Jonathan Hoffman doesn't have to comment anonymously. It is obvious who that comment is from as there have been very similar comments in my blog.

And by not condemning Hamas you support them and their Charter in which it specifically calls for the killing of Jews.

Tony Greenstein said...

There's no need to dig deeper, it's all already there Richard. What you mean is that you can't find anything convincing to explain the Christ killers comments.

My comments re Silke were on account of her defence of the comments and her revelation that she was non-Jewish German. Who else but someone with a Nazi pedigree would come out with that? Ok, I agree. A Zionist too!!

By not condemning a group one supports them? I know you don't do subtlety but what am I supposed to condemn them for? Making women wear veils? Fine. Attacks on Palestinian workers? Absolutely. Resisting Israeli bombs, tanks and assassinations? Nope. They represent an oppressed people.

I think my views are quite clear from the post I did yesterday celebrating the 43rd anniversary of the PFLP, when thousands rallied in Gaza.

If anyone should be concerned it is those who did and do their best to drive Palestinians into the hands of Hamas, i.e. Israel.

I've yet to hear a condemnation of Israel's role in creating Hamas or supporting Islamic fundamentalism among Israeli Arabs for that matter.

In short Richard, you are a hypocrite who blames the victim. But Hamas have nothing to do with Jews as Christ-killers. If they came out with such a remark I wouldn't hesitate to condemn the remark.

What I wouldn't do is pretend it didn't happen or, even worse, make excuses for it. That is why you should be ashamed.

Gert said...


As for Silke. She is German, justifies anti-Semitism and so it's a fair comment to suggest that family members were probably pro-Nazi.

We know for a FACT that Daddy Silke joined the Nazi Wehrmacht voluntarily (she said so herself ON MILLETT'S BLOG, he's playing ingenue again), that she is Far Right and that she poured scorn on the fact that European countries were occupied by the Nazis. She has also ridiculed resistance to the Nazis by non-Germans. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree…

Tony Greenstein said...


thanks for this. I suspected as much. She'd already said she was German, though if she was Polish too, as has been claimed, she would have been one of the ethnic Germans/Volks Deutsche who settled the Incorporated Territories (Silesia/Warthgau).

They filled the ranks of the murderers, falling over each other to occupy the houses of deported Jews and Poles. They were the ones the Nazis relied on in Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and of course Czechoslovakia to outdo the most fanatic SS men.

Of course one shouldn't generalise and certainly in the Sudentenland there were many social democrats and communists who were persecuted amongst them, but in their overwhelming majority they voted for Hitler in the late 1930's.

I suspected from her arguments that Silke had no real objection to anti-Semitism and therefore it was no surprise that she has found a home with Hoffman and Millett. After all Kaminsky and Zile have found a good home with their Israeli friends.

And then they have the chutzpah to talk about 'anti-Semitism'!!

Gert said...

In another post (yes, still a casa Millett) she ridiculed German Communist efforts at fighting the nascent German fascism. And in a comment directed at a co-Zionist, she refused to distance herself from a new German Nationalist far right party. She also quite literally tried to comment spam the comment section of honourable fellow anti-Zionist, The Hasbara Buster, with literally hundreds (I kid you not!) irrelevant and abusive comments. She’s quite a piece of work…

But the biscuit is easily taken by Millett’s latest darling: ‘Yoni’, who recently unequivocally posited that ‘Islamophobia doesn’t exist’ and ‘Islam is not a religion’… All that goes unchecked at Millett’s blog. But a woman invoking the ur-canard of Christian anti-Semitism? He’s almost ready to defend her in court! Zionism gives me a pointy head…

Millett is the New Mad Mel...

Tony Greenstein said...

Ah Gert but you have to hand it to Hoffman who has failed to restrain himself. When I have time, I'm updating this blog with lots of stories I didn't have time for in the past year, I shall turn my attention to his comments!

Being a trot/stalinist you see!!

Yoni seems just mad as well as illiterate.

Silke seems quite a catch. Polish and German. The Volksdeutsche were the worst by and large, the fifth column that helped ferrett out Jews and murder them. They were really the pits and I don't want to castigate whole groups but Nazism infected 90% of them in Sudentenland, according to the last free elections.

Still if Richard Millett wants to have a neo-Nazi back him up on his blog why should I complain? In the Zionist eyes a neo-Nazi is better than an anti-Zionist Jew, hence the support they gave to Atzmon against me.

David L said...

Cheers Tony for trudging through all this dreck so the rest of us don't have to! The complete lack of self-awareness of these Zionists is fascinating and probably will prove to be their downfall.

Despite all, I still can't believe that they are unwilling to admit that this shopworker made the most antisemitic comment anyone could make. But I suppose they understand her anger, it reflects the vituperation they have against Jews who disagree with them and it also illustrates how Israel has become their religion irrespective of what it means to actual Jews.

Tony Greenstein said...

Hi Dave

yes it wasn't a labour of love!

The lengths these people will go to to excuse away just about the most offensive anti-semitic comment in the book speaks volumes.

The 'logic' of their argument seems to be that if 'provoked' then it's ok to come out with 'kikes' 'Jewish bastards' 'Jews bake matzos with gentile kids blood' and 'christ killer comments'. Really unbelievable and yet, almost to a man and woman, there is no condemnation.

It shows that when they condemn 'anti-semitism' they are consciously saying it has nothing to do with what we know as anti-semitism, attacks etc. but is simply redefining opposition to zionism and support for the Palestinians de facto as 'anti-semitism'

In other words they are consciously cynical and couldn't care less about what they are doing to render people immune to anti-semitism where it does occur.

And they even have a German far-right/neo-Nazi type to back them up!

But given they happily demonstrated alongside the EDL who can be surprised?