German Conference on Free Speech – But for Whom? Palestinians or Neo-Nazis?

UPDATE:
Ramzy Baroud has pulled out of the Conference citing existing commitments. We confidently predict that this will not be the last speaker to realise that things aren't what they seem.

Conference Organiser Calls for Tony Greenstein to be Put in a 'Preventive Detention' i.e. a Concentration Camp

I was first alerted early last week to a Conference entitled ‘Palestine, Israel, Germany – Boundaries of Open Discussion’, which is due to take place at the Café Freiburg on Sunday 11th of September 2011, When I went to the site of Gilad Atzmon I read that ‘This is a very important conference!!!’ I agree, albeit for different reasons, with Gilad Atzmon.

Subsequently I saw a Press Release issued by the Conference organisers, which rang alarm bells.: ‘when it comes to discussion on topics concerning Palestine, Israel and Germany we often face rigid and concrete boundaries that clearly suppress free and creative discourse.’
Just what topics it doesn’t say, but the equation of Germany and Palestine is deliberately designed to sow confusion.

There is and there can be no doubt that every effort is being put into silencing and suppressing the voice of the Palestinians. The recent criminalisation of Nakba remembrance in Israel, the new anti-Boycott Law, the measures to penalise Israeli human rights organisations and to prevent visas being issued to NGO workers and activists. The activities of Camera, NGO Watch and all the other Aipac and Zionist fronts, point in one direction only. And if there is any doubt, then the attempt to withdraw an honorary doctorate from Tony Kushner in New York or the dismissal of Norman Finkelstein from his position demonstrate the McCarthyite nature of Zionist organisations.

But is that the sole or even the main purpose of the Conference? Just what topics are being suppressed with relation to Germany? We are given no examples. But one clue is the fact that Gilad Atzmon is billed as the lead speaker. In recent years he has become more outspoken about what he considers the Zionist attempt to suppress any narratives about the holocaust other than their own. He is not merely friends with a host of holocaust deniers such as Paul Eisen but he openly espouses works of theirs such as Holocaust Wars. As Israel Shamir, another Holocaust Denier noted: 'it is an article which Atzmon has described as ‘a great text’ – something he has never withdrawn.' This is a reference to an e-mail Atzmon sent me on 6th June 2005 in which he stated, apropos Eisen's article: 'Let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I ll be the first to circulate it.' However in recent years he has become more explicit.

The most open declaration of Atzmon’s belief that there was no holocaust was his essay
Truth, History, and Integrity. His talk to the Freiburg Conference is entitled ‘History, Truth & Integrity’. Atzmon has switched the order of the first two words! In his article Atzmon wrote that:

‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’ [my emphasis – TG] ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? [my emphasis – TG] ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’ ‘Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East.’
It is almost unbelievable that the dilemma of one survivor, whether to go on the death march from Auschwitz or stay behind, fearing either could (& did) lead to their deaths is the basis for Atzmon stating that ‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich… or even dead’ [my emphasis] before going on to question the fact that Auschwitz-Birkenau was a death camp (the latter particularly).

But this should come as no surprise. In Beyond Comparison Atzmon tells us that ‘Zionism not Hitler is the Ultimate Evil’. Is this simply a gross lack of proportion? Well even Atzmon hasn’t suggested that a programme of extermination of Palestinians is under way, although genocidal tendencies have undoubtedly arisen with in sections of the Israeli populace, in particular the religious Zionist and Haredi. It is one thing for protestors to carry signs equating Nazi Germany with Israel. They may not be accurate but what they are trying to do is express their hatred of what Israel is doing by comparing it with another evil.

Atzmon however is not simply trying to paint Israel in dark colours, rather he is consciously white-washing the Nazi regime.

‘To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook... Hitler has never flattened a country for no reason at all, and this is exactly what the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon for four weeks already and in Gaza for years and years….

We are therefore entitled to ask. Is this conference about the suppression of Palestinian voices or the voices of neo-Nazi holocaust denial? Palestinians are the victims of racism and genocide, they suffer every day. The criminalisation of the Nakba is part of this. The denial of their version of events, Palestinian history, is directly related to their continuing oppression.

The criminalisation by the German and Austrian states of holocaust denial is entirely different. Whilst I don’t agree with making holocaust denial an offence, I can well understand why it has been done. However it does nothing to stem the rise of fascism. Arguably it may even help it by suggesting that there is a case to answer. In Austria, fascist and neo-Nazi parties gained nearly 30% of the vote in the last General Election.

However there is no comparison between deeming illegal a commemoration of the Nakba and denying the Holocaust. The Palestinians are an oppressed people whose version of what happened in 1947-9 sharply differs from the Zionist movement which perpetrated its massacres and expulsions. The silencing of Palestinians is an attempt by those who supported the expulsion of ¾ Palestinians to erase that history, all the better to repeat it.

If anything the Palestinians should be compared to the Jews of Germany and Europe, alongside whom they suffered for being the ‘wrong’ race. The silencing of holocaust deniers is a liberal attempt to prevent the recurrence of Nazism. Just as the Holocaust occurred, so did the Nakba. The real comparison is between those who deny the holocaust and those who deny the Nakba. If anything should be made a crime it is Nakba denial.

Press Release
Freiburg, Germany - Freedom of speech and expression are recognised by many as primary human rights. However, when it comes to discussion on topics concerning Palestine, Israel and Germany we often face rigid and concrete boundaries that clearly suppress free and creative discourse. We somehow grasp what we are allowed to say but are also conscious of a variety of thoughts we better keep unsaid.

Speakers include Gilad Atzmon, Ramzy Baroud, Dr Sabine Schiffer, Ken O’Keefe, Hajo Meyer, Ibrahim El-Zayat, Alan Hart, Evelyn Hecht-Galinski,

Yet this Conference seems entirely designed to confuse the two issues. The Conference organisers seem to want to lend respectability to the neo-Nazi cause, (most of whom are now pro-Zionist as Norway’s Breivik demonstrated) by associating it with the fight for Palestinian solidarity. And to do this in Germany of all places. What is, what can only be, the result? That Zionists will be able to point to the Freiburg Conference to ‘prove’ that the cause of Palestine is really one which is anti-Jewish.

That any Palestinian could lend their support to this is unbelievable and one would hope that Ramzy Baroud and Ibrahim El-Zayat, when they are apprised of the situation, will withdraw.

The same cannot be said for Ken O’Keefe who has been written to 3 times and immediately forward the e-mails to the Conference Organiser, Dr Weber, but has failed to reply to us. I have also raised with him disturbing allegations about his own organisation, which are not themselves reliable, but he failed to respond to these too.

Hajo Meyer is an Auschwitz survivor and spoke 2 years ago at the House of Commons Holocaust meeting organised by the International Jewish Anti-Zionist group. However this is not his first association with Atzmon and he is no longer able to understand why, as an Auschwitz survivor, speaking alonside Atzmon is not a good thing.

Alan Hart is a former BBC Panorama journalist who thought he was the first person to discover that Jews and Zionism are not the same. Despite this he has eagerly sought to accommodate to Atzmon’s wishes, e.g. when he spoke recently after the cancelled Westminster University meeting, alongside Atzmon having previously stated that he was also pulling out. In other words an opportunist who is employed by the Irani State Press TV.

Evelyn Hecht-Galinski is a German Jews who is passionate about the Palestinians but her other political attachments are unknown.

Sabine Schiffer is also an unknown quantity. She has though failed to reply to an e-mail asking her to withdraw though she is known to have worked with the Institute of Race Relations in Britain which has never failed to make a sharp distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism.

People are urged to contact all the speakers to let them know that whilst this conference may be of help to holocaust deniers, revisionists and neo-Nazis, it is of no help to the Palestinians.

An indication of the politics of the main organiser, Dr Gaby Weber can be garnered from an e-mail from her to me of 29th July, 2011: ‘ People like you, Mr. Greenstein, should be put in preventive custody!’

At first I couldn’t imagine why someone would talk in such an archaic fashion and then it clicked. Preventive Detention was the euphemism that was employed when ‘asocial’ elements like the Gypsies and Communists were rounded up for the concentration camps. Although a difference should be made between Concentration and Extermination/Death Camps, even at the former the death rate was between 30 and 50% on average. Weber was calling for me to be put into a concentration camp. No doubt for ‘re-education’. It seems that we have stumbled on a nest of neo-Nazis.

Below I copy all the e-mails I have sent or been sent. Despite thrashing around, even at one point trying to get my account taken down. Atzmon has not corresponded with me for over 5 years. Ever since I gave him his last thrashing in fact.

Out of the blue I received a deluge from him. Likewise Gaby Weber wrote to me out of the blue. It is clear that Atzmon and Weber are worried. Speakers have been told not to correspond with us. But no amount of shouting by Atzmon and Weber can hide the fact that this conference is masquerading as one thing – campaigning against the silencing of Palestinian voices – when its real purpose is to use the Palestinian cause to strengthen the neo-Nazi historical revisionist cause.

For any Palestinian to sign up or support this conference would be like a Turkey looking forward to Xmas!

Tony Greenstein

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 03:15:11 +0100

From: tonygreenstein@yahoo.com

To: Ken O’Keefe Subject: Atzmon

Ken

I'm surprised that I even have to write to you about this. From memory you once wrote to me saying that you had no time for Atzmon yet here you are on a bill with him.

In case this is all strange to you, I am posting a link to my 'Guide to Atzmon'
It is interesting that in Germany of all places Atzmon titles his talk History, Truth and Integrity because in his essay Truth, History and Integrity he writes that

‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’ [my emphasis – TG] ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? [my emphasis – TG] ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’ ‘Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East.’
When Atzmon talks about 'freedom of speech' he is not talking about the silencing of Palestinian voices vs Zionism, which as you will be aware, I tried to combat with the petition about the BBC coverage last year, but about holocaust denial. The above quote 'if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau' says everything about his real agenda.

I would urge you to think very carefully about this as it will only legitimise someone who actually is anti-Semitic. The fact that 99% of the times the Zionists label someone anti-Zionist as anti-Semitic doesn't mean there aren't some anti-Semites of the traditional variety around (albeit most of them, like the Norwegian bomber are mainly pro-Israel these days).

best

Tony Greenstein


On 27 Jul 2011, at 19:23, Dr. Gabi Weber wrote:

Dear Mr. Greenstein

my name is Dr. Gabi Weber. I am the head of Cafe Palestine Freiburg and the main organizer of Freiburg Conference on September 11th.

Today I found out that the dirty war you are fighting in vain against Gilad Atzmon for years now, is spilling over to Germany.

One day after the conference was announced, your bad games started again. You try to bother my speakers and you even do not hesitate to spread your lies to our young Palestinian musician, Moamen Khatib. Probably you didn´t realise that you didn´t only send the text adressed to Moamen but also the correspondence you had concerning Moamen being "young and gullible". It is really disgusting!

I know that it is not the first time that you try to jeopardize an event with Gilad Atzmon - whether it is supposed to happen in Germany, Switzerland or other countries. To reach your obvious "aim in life" you don´t hesitate to lie, to commit forgery, to take "quotes" out of their context and put them together in a wrong order and so on. I am also in posession of interesting documents that testify Mr. Greenstein´s criminal past.

Recently I learned that xxx tried to stop singer and musician Amal Murkus and the Palestinian delegation in London who organised the Palestinian event "From Al Tahrir to Jerusalem". She tried to do a "counter-event" under the similar name as the "Al Tahrir"- event.

Having a lot of information about your sick "movement" I could respond to each of the false sentences xxx is writing to Moamen.

But I prefer to let you know that from now on, I will record and spread every single attempt from your side to destroy the conference.

Perhaps you didn´t realise by now. I am distributing all kinds of news about Palestine to thousands of adresses I have in my internet list. My newsletters are spread by others and this not only in Germany. What you should also know is, that I have hundreds of politicians and press adresses in my list. This means that - if I start to publish what is happening around the conference - many people and organisations will finally understand how the so-called "Palestinian solidarity movement" works. And I must admit that I detest the way of action that you dare to call "solidarity for Palestinians".

I copied all my conference participants as well as other important people as addressee into this email. And I am asking each of them to inform me about any attempt to put pressure on them and to prevent them from joining the conference.

Below you find the email from Mrs. X to Moamen, the correspondence foregoing this mail and also Tony Greenstein´s mail to Ken O´Keefe.

The conference wants to disclose the elements that destroy open discourse. You couldn´t have done better to show everybody how necessary this conference is!

Dr. Gabi Weber

From: tony greenstein

To: ken_okeefe ; Kenneth O'Keefe ken.okeefe@alohapalestine.com> 27th July 19:38

Ken

I e-mailed you early this morning. I hope you got it.

Meanwhile I've been sent this message. What is going on? I understand that Atzmon's ex-friend Mary Rizzo is involved but I know no more than that

Tony

From: Tony Greenstein 27th July 20:05
To: Gaby Weber

Dear Dr Weber,

It would seem that we have touched a raw nerve.

I know nothing of Moamen Khatib. I have no desire to destroy any conference, least of all that on Palestine. However I also do not wish the Palestine solidarity and anti-Zionist movements to be sullied by someone who is an out and out anti-Semite and now a holocaust denier. Atzmon's primary contribution to the cause is to attack, not Zionists but Jewish anti-Zionists who he defines, by virtue of being Jewish, as Zionists. I think you are very aware of what I am talking about. If not then my Guide to Atzmon will help your understanding, important with someone who is a Doctor.

I think the extract below from 'Truth History and Integrity' by Atzmon speaks for itself whatever interpretation you put on it.

The open discourse that you say you don't want to destroy has nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with rehabilitation of those who presided over 12 years of fascism in Germany and who exterminated not only Jews, but Gypsies, Gays, Russians and the Disabled. Perhaps free speech for Nazis should be the title of your conference? The real issue is the silencing of Palestinian voices not neo-Nazis.

My past has nothing to do with any of this but all previous, minor convictions, a quarter of a century ago, are all spent. And defrauding bankers doesn't seem to me much like a crime given they have defrauded everyone else but no doubt 'justice for bankers' and wankers is also one of your causes.

In Solidarity

Tony Greenstein

Truth, History, and Integrity

‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’ [my emphasis – TG] ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? [my emphasis – TG] ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’ ‘Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East.’

From: tony greenstein

To: ken_okeefe Sent: Wed, 27 July, 2011 20:07:49 Subject: Gabi Weber

It seems I was wrong and that you did indeed respond to my e-mail, but not to me!

I have just had a hysterical e-mail from Gabi Weber which tends to suggest that you are indeed aligned to Atzmon

tony greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: Dr. Gabi Weber

To tony greenstein

Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 11:03:52

Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Hello

I really thought that after so many years you would realise spreading all those lies about me, won't get you anywhere. If anything, it really harms your career and this is indeed a great shame.

Being consumed in envy you clearly missed a great chance to become a world star.

As you may notice, people who are involved professionally in the music business are really careful not to badmouth each other.

It is time for you to become a pro. You certainly posses the musical talent. We are getting older, and as far as I am aware, you live once.


All the best
Gilad


On 28 Jul 2011, at 14:49, tony greenstein wrote:

Gilad Atzmon

The arrogance and malevolence of your post below amply demonstrates why you are a threat to the Palestine solidarity movement. You are worth your weight in gold to Mossad for your divisive effect.

Despite calling for debate on every aspect of the holocaust and WWII, when I challenged you on Unity FM in Birmingham recently you panicked and threatened to walk off the set if Sami Ibrahim allowed me to challenge you once more. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/06/funny-thing-happened-today-as-unity-fm.html Your agenda is quite clear

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein Cc: Dr. Gabi Weber

Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 17:10:37

Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Greenstein, I hope that you yourself don't believe the crap you write, because if you do, you certainly need a professional help.

Interestingly enough, with my academic qualification and my deep understanding of tribal psychosis, I may be the only person who could help you, and believe me, I do my best.

All you have to do, is to keep reading me as you do, and to look in the mirror (as you never do)

ATB
Gilad

On 28 Jul 2011, at 17:59, tony greenstein wrote:

Atzmon

I certainly don't need professional help to understgand what you write. A child of five could decipher the 'deep meanings'.

Your 'academic qualification' and deep understanding of 'tribal psychosis' (is it a recognised WHO medical impairment?) cannot get you out of the fix you are in.

At least I am able to look in the mirror and see my reflection

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Cc: Dr. Gabi Weber Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 18:43:33

Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

You failed the test again,,, You do not need professional help to understand me (everybody does), it is yourself whom you don't understand.

But as i said, i can help you.

Tell me when you are ready .. it will hurt but its worth it.


On 28 Jul 2011, at 21:25, tony greenstein wrote:

Gilad Atzmon

Thank you for your most recent e-mail. I can understand your concern regarding the Palestine festival in Germany. I have a suggestion for you. Given that you are widely believed to be a holocaust denier and that you politically associate with people like Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen, why don't you pull out of the Conference in order that there can be no controversy over your appearance?

Surely you know that someone with your reputation, appearing in Germany of all places, on a platform which is apparently designed to oppose the silencing of Palestinian voices in the media, though it looks suspiciously like your real concern is the silencing of neo-Nazis like Ernst Zundel and others who wish to rewrite history, cannot possibly be of any assistance or support to the Palestinians or anti-Zionism?

Why don't you prove that your purported concern and make a small sacrifice? As for the rest of your e-mail. It's a sign of your overweening ego and arrogance that you really think you're the one who sets others with tests. This is not the era of McCarthy.

I agree that most people, not everyone (unless your omnipresent) understand you for what you are, which is a gifted musician, albeit one who is not too careful about attributing the music he uses to those who wrote it, combined with a superficial bigot. It's called the Bobby Fischer syndrome. Hence why you hide what you are saying beneath a dense undergrowth of pseudo academic prose. You actually don't want people to understand the implications of what you write.

No one of course fully understands themselves but you demonstrate that you haven't even begun that process with yourself. Hence why you try to impress people with your second hand observations, masquerading as important insights. The fact that a number of people flatter you whilst understanding barely a word of what you say, only increases your problems.

Accept your help? To what end? Helping you to come to terms with your massive ego and second-rate mind? I'm sorry but even the Good Samaritan would have walked away from that one.

But since you've come back for another dose of enlightenment, perhaps you could answer a simple question? Why, on 16th June, when I confronted you in a radio phone-in programme on Unity FM, http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-with-sammi-ibrahem-unity-fm.html with a few pertinent questions, did you throw a tantrum and issue an ultimatum that you would walk out if Sammi Ibrahem allowed me to put you on the spot again? You, the all-knowing brilliant intellect nearly had a heart attack when you were forced to respond to what were quite simple questions such as how does holocaust denial help the Palestinians? Or why you queried in 'Truth, History & Integrity' the existence of Auschwitz as a death camp?

Your outburst was recorded on the tape you so conveniently supplied, but I'd already worked it out on my blog and Sami Ibrahim has since confirmed it, saying he was stunned by your reaction but didn't know what to do faced with your threatened walk-out. Result that as I was waiting for a second bite of the cherry I listened to Sami was saying there were no callers!

I also found it amusing, but not surprising, when you were asked a straight question on Unity FM, 'do you accept the holocaust as a fact?', that you responded you didn't know if it occurred because you are not a historian. Do you really need to be a historian to know whether something as cataclysmic as the holocaust occurred? Do you need to be a historian to know if the Nakba occurred? Or whether there was a triangular slave trade between Africa, Britain and the Americas? Or the American War of Independence or the Armenian genocide? Your answer, or rather failure to answer, speaks volumes.

Your problem is very simple. You can't come to terms with either your own stupidity or malevolence.

Tony Greenstein

From: Tony Greenstein

To: Ken O’Keefe

28th July 2011 23:57

Ken,

I have still not had a response from you as to why you will be speaking in Germany alongside someone who is a holocaust denier.

I also mentioned that I had been passed certain rumours regarding yourself. My initial reaction was to ignore them but then I recalled a strange e-mail I received from you at a time when an advert attacking the BBC for its coverage of the Mavi Marmara was being discussed. I ignored it because clearly the money had been raised for different purposes but it nonetheless struck me at the time as very strange.

But if you are prepared to give legitimacy to Gilad Atzmon, despite all he has written, then who knows what you are really thinking.

Tony Greenstein

From: Kenneth O'Keefe

To: tony greenstein <

Sent: Wed, 8 September, 2010 19:34:22

Subject: Re: Update BBC Ad

Aloha Tony,
Please consider the possibility of asking people if they would object to investing this money in www.BPC-World.co.uk. With that money we could pay people to produce an awesome critique of the program and market it so that it would reach a much bigger audience. I only say this because I believe in turning negatives into positives, this is a great chance to seriously blast the BBC and if this idea is of any interest I will spend the time to give more specifics.
TJP,
Ken

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Cc: Dr. Gabi Weber

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 1:13:37 Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Do you really take yourself seriously,,, do you really think that people who are "widely believed to be a holocaust denier" perform in Germany on regular basis?

Apperntly writing is just another gift you lack... can you try and say it in a single short paragraph? Unlike you, i don't live on income support.. I am a busy man

On 29 Jul 2011, at 04:14, tony greenstein wrote:

No need to shout. When I'm writing for the benefit of others then it is important to make one's point.

I note that you fail to answer any questions but hey, who is surprised?

Being on income support and being busy are not incompatible.

And to develop your 'mirror' analogy even further, it would appear that like Caliban, you don't seem to like what you see.

Give my love to Mary Rizzo

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein Cc: Dr. Gabi Weber

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 8:25:25 Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

I like it when you are short ..

If you want my attention, keep it short..good exercise for you..
you say,

Being on income support and being busy are not incompatible.

they actually are..

it is the all about the difference between being a failure and being a success story.

it also explains the lack of mirroring, the criminal record, the hate crimes against Jews and then your relentless hasbara tricks ..all documentd

Mr Greenstein, you are an exemplary case of tribal ugliness..

In fact We need you, you exhibit everything I say about tribalism and Zionist activism.

You ll read my book soon

I am also happy to send you a review copy in September

From: Dr. Gabi Weber

To: tony greenstein Cc: Gilad Atzmon <; Manuel Hassassian

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 14:12:59

Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Hello Mr. Greenstein,

as physician, working with all kinds of patients for years now, I am used to many different symptoms, diseases, psychological disorders and so on. Fortunately until now I never before was involved in dirty games and tricks as I am experiencing in the emails you are sending for days now. Even the mentally sickest of my patients I ever had, was not as sick as you are!

And to say it clear - KEEP ME OUT OF YOUR MAD INTRIGUES!

My time is too precious to deal with people who are obviously full of hatred, only aiming at destroying other people´s lifes.

Really, I have pity for you. What kind of life must this be, to spend years over years by trying to demolish the career of a person and to see that all the efforts are leading to nothing? On the contrary, the person you try to destroy is getting more and more popular and successful. What a shame for you!
Your behaviour proves exactly, what is happening in the so-called Palestinian Solidarity Movement. We are infiltrated with dirty Hasbara, this is very clear.

Perhaps you should try to find something beautiful for your life? You could try to use your talents, which you certainly have but that you bury under tons of hate and negative energy. Imagine if you simply tried to take all this energy you need for the attempts to destroy Gilad Atzmon and did something positive with it. Perhaps we already would have a Palestinian State?????

As I told you in my last email, I am very attentive in what is happening around my Freiburg conference. In case I get any information of your ongoing attempt to bother my speakers I will start publicizing everything.

Best wishes
Dr. Gabi Weber

Am 29.07.2011 19:30, schrieb tony greenstein:

Gabi Weber

I am not interested in your role as a doctor. Many people unfortunately get treated by quacks and other charlatans. Clearly your patients fit into that category.

For someone whose time is so precious you seem to do a lot of e-mailing but I'm trying to save your time by having Gilad Atzmon gracefully withdraw from the conference. To save face he could say that he has a conflict of interest being a patient of yours.

And then maybe you could consult a real doctor regarding your symptoms of paranoia

tony greenstein

From: Dr. Gabi Weber

To: tony greenstein

Cc: Gilad Atzmon <

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 20:11:06 Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

People like you, Mr. Greenstein, should be put in preventive custody!

For your attempt to infamize Gilad Atzmon, who is one of the panelists of Freiburg Conference as well as the attempt to discredit the conference I will take you to court whenever you enter Germany, although being aware that I would not get a penny from you loosing the trial.

You are the last person on this planet to tell me, who I am allowed to invite to any event I am planning. Sorry, Mr. Greenstein, you are not the one who I will ever ask for advice.

Dr. Gabi Weber

On 29 Jul 2011, at 21:06, tony greenstein wrote:

How interesting 'Dr' Weber. I should be put in preventive custody. What an unfortunate phrase but there's many a slip betwixt cup and lip .

'Preventive Custody' was of course the euphemism used for placing Gypsies and other 'anti-socials' in concentration camps by the Nazis. (C Browning - Origin of the Final Solution amongst others). Very few of course survived, though according to Atzmon they were probably holiday camps.

I guess it makes sense though.

When I first heard of your conference I assumed that you were innocent and naive and didn't know anything of Atzmon's racist background. Now it would seem that not only were you aware but you share his opinion, indeed are in advance of them.

Do you have any other gems to share with us?

tony greenstein

On 29 Jul 2011, at 21:16, tony greenstein wrote:

Yes u send me a review copy of your book. I doubt any review will be favourable though.

Ah yes, being on income support is a sign of criminality is it. Any more reactionary thoughts of the day?

I seem to have succeeded very well in spreading the message about you!

tony greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Cc: Dr. Gabi Weber

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 22:20:52 Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Being on income support is a symptom of yourself being failure , the criminality is just another symptom.. And The failure of your relentless campaign against me is probably the ultimate symptom. And get guess what, you
Don't get because you are a failure .

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 22:55:25

Subject: Re: Atzmon's Conference Organiser Comes Out in Her True Colours (Re: Stop bothering!!!!)

You do it again, projecting your fantasies on others.. However you are an anti social,, you are a shop lifter, credit card fraudster, vandal, a liar, a stalker ,, did I miss anything?

On 29 Jul 2011 at 22:56, tony greenstein wrote:

Gilad Atzmon

Being judged by you a failure is a sign of success. It depends on your values, of which u would appear to have none.

You talk of criminality but you are the biggest fraud of them all, and that is because you are dishonest politically. Robin Hood was no criminal but the Sheriff of Nottingham was. But the Sheriff made the law so it was Robin Hood who was the criminal legally, because the powerful make the law. But for u it is the Bund who were criminals for

It is not going to work to Tony'le, you have managed to burn all bridges... The only man who loves you is me because you prove everything I say...

29th July 23:10 Re: Atzmon's Conference Organiser Comes Out in Her True Colours (Re: Stop bothering!!!!) ...

From: tony greenstein [Chat now]

To: Gilad Atzmon

just mad and getting madder

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Sent: Fri, 29 July, 2011 23:20:00

Subject: Re: Stop bothering!!!!

Too long again remember, I am a busy man,,give it another go... A week with me ll make u into a mench


From: tony greenstein [Chat now] Sent: 29th July 23:49

To: Gilad Atzmon

not trying to eliminate inconvenient posts are we? learnt your trade well I see

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Cc: Dr. Gabi Gabi Weber

Sent: Sat, 30 July, 2011 0:38:32

Subject: here is an offer

I imagine anything is too long 4 you. Your brain is addled. Hence y u cannot answer a simple question re being a historian

G: You are wrong, you simply get carried away, and i am not as sympathetic as you like me to be,,I really prefer to write a good paper then reading your endless ranting...

However, here is an offer for you..
submit 10 questions. in a respectable format..
Short questions, in an orderly manner..
you can ask anything you like, Holocaust, Nakba , Shamir, my IDF history, all the things that concern you

I will do the same, I will a

From: Gilad Atzmon

On 30 Jul 2011, at 00:56, tony greenstein wrote:

there you go again. You assume that I am curious or concerned about your past.

G: you are a coward, you blame me for not answering your 'simple questions ' and then ... run away.. this is why you are a failure... Tony,, this is why no one publishes you, not even your old friends...

I know more than enough about you to know that you don't give straight answers as you demonstrated with the response to a simple question on radio - did the holocaust occur. You could have said yes or no rather than hiding behind the 'I'm not a historian' excuse.

Just because u r obsessed by yourself it doesn't mean that others are.

G: being my leading stalker, this is the best joke you have ever produced

yes you're more popular than the Palestinians. Who knows. Maybe that's the way to victory! Quite what they've done to deserve your 'support' is another question.

G: It is indeed a matter of concern i agree,,,

I have no idea whose site ranks highest and only someone with a monstrous ego would be at all concerned with whether he is more popular than Electronic Intifada.

G: Again facts my dear,, i am sure that you know the ranking of your site and you also know that it jumps up when you write about me...and then it drops agin...
]
you see , you have to learn to differentiate between ego and merits...

What I do know is that EI is a site with quality articles on a consistent basis about Palestinian politics. Your site is full of rubbish. And if you don't get it, well try this. The Sun is Britain's most popular paper and the News of the World was the most popular Sunday paper, but only a complete idiot would brandish those figures against the circulation of say the Guardian. Come to think of it you probably are a Sun reader.

G: Popularity indeed doesn;t mean a lot, but as you and i know, all my articles are circulated on all and best dissident journals around the world in and in many languages... as you may know by now.. . You have a problem there, you will have to shape your narrative ....

Going away for 3 weeks are we? Israel? No I guess that would be too obvious. Just remember Harold Wilson's dictum. Even a week can be a long time in politics. If I was u I'd keep internet contact.

Tony Greenstein

On 31 Jul 2011, at 02:42, tony greenstein wrote:

Not at all.

If you have any relevant political question then I will be happy to answer it but I'm not going down into the sewer with you.

The question is a simple one. Why did you refuse to give a simple answer to a question about the holocaust and instead dishonestly resort to saying you weren't a historian? Actually it's a rhetorical question since I know the answer. There is only one answer i.e. you didn't want to say outright what you believe, i.e. there was no holocaust. So you were lying to the SWP in 2005 or you've changed your mind. Which is it?

I'm published by plenty of quality publications and sites, from Electronic Intifada to Weekly Worker to the Journal of Holy Land Studies, Labour History Workshop etc. They expect rigorous academic standards unlike the dross you pen which is motivated by conspiracy theories in which it's always the the Jews wot done it. Sure there are hundreds of conspiracy sites and they are entitled to the benefit of your insights.

You're quite a simple fellow Gilad really. But I assume that when you go to Gabi's conference you will be honest with those who wish to break the boundaries of political discourse and openly state what you think regarding WW2 and defy those who would want to silence the flat earthists, sorry holocaust deniers.

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Sent: Sun, 31 July, 2011 8:43:05

Subject: Re: here is an offer

Tony the offer was simple. You question , I question... But you are a coward ...
You can mention my idf past but wouldn't like to talk about yourself being a dedicated shoplifter more or less the same year. You see, you are not capable of think historically.

People who cannot live in peace with their past ve no prospect of future. This applies to israel and you.

Anyway. Here is the answer to your idiotic question.

In spite of being an English speaker you fail to see that holocaust and nakba are not facts but historical narattives-compounds of facts, beliefs, myths, body of fictional and cinematic narration and so on...

Hence the question 'did the holocaust happen' is an idiotic question and Impossible to answer. Narattives are not facts!!! The same applies to the Nakba.

Facts can be verified in isolation not as a bundle of events...

I guess that you are too stupid to understand it and this may not be your fault. I believe also that there is no much you could do about it..

However, in my new book and my writing I give a full account of my take on history and the holcaust.

History = revision of the past . The enemies of such adventure are the enemies of humanity. You amongst other zionists are no doubt in the club.

Re the publications you mention. Only one of them is respected , credible and popular (elec intifada) and as far as I am aware you are not exactly their regular columnist... You probably managed to filter through twice...

I wish you luck. You mayeven make it again in a year time... I wonder how come no one reprinted your Atzmon's guide? you clearly spent years on this piece.

Have a nice day
g

On 31 Jul 2011, at 15:07, tony greenstein wrote:

I'm not interested in a dialogue with you, your personal past, your failure to oppose Zionism when in Israel or any other mythology about you personally. i just want to know why you lie politically, that's all.

My personal past has no relevance to the debate despite your lies. I'm not even interested in the fact that you have stolen the music and work of Palestinians and not given them credit or royalties except when pressed, eg Mahmoud Darwish. People will make their own assessment of your morals but for my part I'm not interested in you except in so far as you damage the Palestinian cause to boost your career

Tony Greenstein

31st July 17:43 Tony Greenstein

It's not a question of what I believe.

Oh I think most people know that even if I was Jack the Ripper himself, it would have no relevance to the fact that you are a holocaust denier and a liar who can't even admit to what he believes openly. Someone who consciously lies like you is naturally politically dishonest so yes, obviously you r happy to take Palestinians for a ride to bolster your career. The question is whether you are an Israeli asset or not.

The jury is out on that one.

tony greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon

To: tony greenstein

Sent: Sun, 31 July, 2011 17:56:25 Subject: Re: here is an offer

It is not down to u to decide about the relevance of your past and it seems that was relevant enough for you to take me to court... the story about MD is almost as funny as your past... Do u really believe in it? Do u really believe that I would be publishing and touring for pls organisations if it was true? Even your stupidity must ve limit.

Re: here is an offer

From: Gilad Atzmon

Sent: Sun, 31 July, 2011 22:54
...
To: tony greenstein >
U r a total moron to think that pls could boost anyone's career.. Don't u know that show business is run by z&js... The fact that I ve a career while supporting pls is a miracle xxx and re h denial, there is no such a thing. It is a zionist invention ..

From Tony Greenstein >

To: Gilad Atzmon

Monday 1st August 01.29. Conference on Historical Revisionism

Gilad,

I realise that I didn’t response to the second part of your lengthy post, about which I have no complaint, because I didn’t see it. Put it down to the joys of bringing up children who distract you.

I understand only too well what you are saying. Historical narratives are either composed of historical facts, or alleged facts, or they are not historical. I say that as a historian. The debate in history centres around which facts are chosen out of the many, how they are interpreted and whether they are indeed true as alleged. You confuse a narrative with culture and in any event, the term historical narrative in the sense you use it is contradictory, as if history is just a story which can be changed.

Hence when Haneen Zoabi says that the Nakba is not a narrative but a fact she is challenging those who deny the Nakba. When I challenge those who deny the holocaust I do it for exactly the same reasons. When children were murdered in Auschwitz or in Duweima, they were facts – facts etched in blood. No narrative in the world can change those facts.

You say that the question whether the holocaust or nakba occurred is an ‘idiotic question and Impossible to answer. Narattives are not facts!!! The same applies to the Nakba.’ Precisely. Whether the holocaust or nakba occurred are facts, part of an overall story or analysis, but in themselves are factually situated in history.

The narrative or analysis is how we make sense of them, why did they happen, what were the attitudes of those who committed these atrocities, were they part of a wider plan, who knew etc. etc. Facts can clearly be verified as a bundle of events. If massacres occurred all round then it is likely that one occurred in a village or town, even where there were no survivors or witnesses.

So it is not a question of my stupidity but your desire to rewrite the past. History involves a reinterpreation of the past not a revision of the past . You can’t revise that which has happened unless you possess a time capsule. You can reinterpret the past but that is an entirely different thing. Hence why David Irving accepted the holocaust when he asserted that Hitler never knew. When he joined the holocaust deniers he was quickly out of his depth. So the enemies of humanity are those who would deny facts that have long been proved in order to repeat them again. I don’t know whether you are a Zionist. However everything you do gives comfort to them.

I have never claimed respectability. I was in fact asked specifically to write an article by EI on Histadrut and the process was rigorous. It has laid the basis for Boycott actions against them, not something you would know much about having opposed the boycott previously.

Interesting that the Journal of Holy Land Studies, edited by Professor Nur Masalha is not respected. But I only threw out these two to demonstrate that you are wrong as usual.

Tony Greenstein

On 1 Aug 2011, at 01:41, tony greenstein wrote:

I'll leave to one side your equation of Jews and Zionists and the fact that show business is run by them.

If indeed it is blighting your career, then we are in a win-win situation. You don't associate with the Palestine solidarity movement and the Palestinians benefit. Likewise your career benefits. A deal?

Or of course there is the other explanation for your behaviour. Namely that your career is protected as a good Israeli State asset.

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon giladatzmon@mac.com

To: tony greenstein

Sent: Mon, 1 August, 2011 7:54:04

Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

I am sorry to disappoint you but history is a story.. It is an attempt to make the past into a story.. Sometime we encounter a battle between competing stories (stories , narratives, paradigms). I myself view it as the human experience.

And if a historical narrative is the 'attempt to make sense' if a chain of event' as you yourself say than you cannot attribute truthfulness to it. You see, in order to attribute truth to a statement you need a correspondence rule. You can do it with facts but not with 'sense'. about the attempt to make sense all you can say is that it is sensible...

You could do with a bit of thinking..this may help you to catch up ...

Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

From: Gilad Atzmon < span=""><>

To: tony greenstein <

Sent: Mon, 1 August, 2011 8:01:29

Subject: Re: here is an offer

Unlike you tony, I do not ve any interest in politics. I do what I do because I follow my own ethical call. I do not wake up in the morning and ask myself what I can do for 'the movement'. I do what I do because I am intrigued intellectually and morally. I believe that the fact that each of my articles are reprinted an translated on hundreds of outlets means something. Everything is very simple in my world.

From: tony greenstein 14:03

To: Gilad Atzmon giladatzmon@mac.com

No history isn't just a story. If when my children were younger I told them the story of the 3 Bears there was no truth in it. At best it was allegorical. But history is based on what actually happened, facts. Of course some history is invented, as Shlomo Sand has demonstrated. In which case it's not history but myth.

Yes a historical narrative is an attempt to make sense of, sometimes conflicting facts.

What I really find strange is that you harp on about this absolute nonsense of whether or not the Holocaust occurred, when that is taken for granted, a given.

The real debates are not between historical revisionists and those who believe in the holocaust, because 99.99% of historians do, but within those who believe in it. That is why your attraction to the deniers is so churlish and childish. You never get beyond the first stage.

You therefore miss out on things like the devastating critique of Daniel Goldhagen's attempt to portray all Germans as Hitler's Willing Executioners. E.g. Finkelstein's demolition job on him. What did Germans know, if anything? My own view is very little in fact, hence why no extermination camp was anywhere near Germany. It took the Germans 2 years to discover from 1939 to 1941 that even within Germany their own disabled children were being gassed and burnt in the ovens of Hartheim and Brandenburg.

Instead of having attached your kite to these non-historians who find a fact and then twist it into a general attack on the holocaust per se, as if e.g. one could ever be sure of numbers when it took the US 3 years to be confident it knew how many had died in 9/11, you could have written about the debates between intentionalists and functionalists, how Zionism via Yad vashem has sought to twist and manipulate holocaust historiography in their political direction erasing people like Rudolf Vrba.

Instead you wish to hold hands with Mark Weber of the IHR. That for me is what is most baffling.

Tony Greenstein

On 1 Aug 2011, at 14:54, tony greenstein < wrote:

whether you have any interest Gilad in politics the fact is that you are involved. Ethics are relative and yours are more relative than most.

The fact that your articles are reprinted means nothing. The question is who by. The News of the World was Britain's biggest circulation newspaper, but its content was tripe.

Tony Greenstein

On 1 Aug 2011, at 15:03, tony greenstein wrote:

No history isn't just a story. If when my children were younger I told them the story of the 3 Bears there was no truth in it. At best it was allegorical. But history is based on what actually happened, facts. Of course some history is invented, as Shlomo Sand has demonstrated. In which case it's not history but myth.

Yes a historical narrative is an attempt to make sense of, sometimes conflicting facts.

What I really find strange is that you harp on about this absolute nonsense of whether or not the Holocaust occurred, when that is taken for granted, a given.

The real debates are not between historical revisionists and those who believe in the holocaust, because 99.99% of historians do, but within those who believe in it. That is why your attraction to the deniers is so churlish and childish. You never get beyond the first stage.

You therefore miss out on things like the devastating critique of Daniel Goldhagen's attempt to portray all Germans as Hitler's Willing Executioners. E.g. Finkelstein's demolition job on him. What did Germans know, if anything? My own view is very little in fact, hence why no extermination camp was anywhere near Germany. It took the Germans 2 years to discover from 1939 to 1941 that even within Germany their own disabled children were being gassed and burnt in the ovens of Hartheim and Brandenburg.

Instead of having attached your kite to these non-historians who find a fact and then twist it into a general attack on the holocaust per se, as if e.g. one could ever be sure of numbers when it took the US 3 years to be confident it knew how many had died in 9/11, you could have written about the debates between intentionalists and functionalists, how Zionism via Yad vashem has sought to twist and manipulate holocaust historiography in their political direction erasing people like Rudolf Vrba.

Instead you wish to hold hands with Mark Weber. That for me is what is most baffling.

Tony Greenstein

From: Gilad Atzmon < span=""><>

To: tony greenstein

Date: Monday 1^st August 15:31

We had been there before, you do not know how to integrate data into an argument. Indeed popularity is not necessarily an indication but my articles are circulated on most prestigious dissident Mags, they also do not promote any populist or popular views ... if this doesn't Mean a thing to you , I don't know what does..., also ethics is not relative it Is actually universal... But this may be too complicated for you to grasp at this stage... It is one of the most complicated issues in continental philosophy .

From: Gilad Atzmon giladatzmon@mac.com
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Mon, 1 August, 2011 18:10:18
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

Tony did you ever hear about the distinction between fictional and non fictional..? If you really want to talk about sand , read sand about philosophy of history.. For him every history is an invention... I can send u a recording when he says it to me in an interview.. But he also says it in his book ..

Also you won't fin in my writing any quote suggesting the H didn't take place.. I insist that it is not conveyed as a historical narrative but as a religion .. The difference between leibovitch , offir and myself is that I try to understand the metaphysics of this precept ..

I am writing from phone and cannot enter a major discussion about DG or NF ...but I clearly despise the former ...I ll be happy to deal with it once I m on wifi

From: Gilad Atzmon
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Tue, 2 August, 2011 17:20:53
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

Gilad

yes I have heard of the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Up till now I had always considered the Holocaust fitted into the latter!
G: For sure, so is the Nakba and Napoleon wars, yet you could have competing narratives within the non fictional category. And issues to do with truthfulness are slightly more complicated than the the 'story of the 3 Bears' you picked as an example.

You say I won't find any reference in your writings or quotes that the Holocaust didn't take place. I think your essay 'Truth, History & Integriy' suggests otherwise, as does '1001 Lies...'

G: It is pretty astonishing that a middle age English speaking person is yet to grasp the meaning of the word 'if' and its common usage within academic and day to day language.
For instance when we say:
' if 2+2=4 than 2+1+1=4'
The word 'if', isn't there to suggest that 2+2 doesn't equals 4.
The word IF has a precise logical function that doesn't suggest doubt but a form of an hypothetical statement.
When we say 'If X then Y'
We do not suggest that X is false but offering an implicative relationships between the two.
when we say,
'If the sun is larger than earth and the earth is larger than the moon than the sun is larger than the moon.'
By no means we doubt the existence of the sun.

The Holocaust itself is not a historical narrative in the sense you mean it but a programme of the destruction of European Jewry and many many others.

G: Sorry man, as much as you want it to be a religion, it is actually a historical narrative... and I will use my intellectual capacity to make sure everyone out there sees it as such.
How others interpret it is another matter. If it is perfectly possible to argue that it has become almost an alternative religion, something which cannot be questioned whose lessons must be accepted as tablets of stone handed down from Mount Sinai or wherever.

It is also possible to draw many conclusions from the Holocaust. That is what I and others on the anti-Zionist Jewish left have done.
G: I am dying to learn about the revolutionary conclusion you and your left synagogue have reached.
Our conclusion is that any attempt at genocide and expulsion/transfer is wrong.
G: Wow, i am indeed impressed... did you come revelationout with the revelation alone or were you helped by an adult?
that it is explicable within the framework of European fascism in its phase of total war etc. But this is not what you are doing. You are working with those who deny the actualite and then on that basis draw their philosophical and political conclusions.

G: Actually, I work alone. But you are certainly right, I am interested in slightly more subtle 'conclusions'

That is something else entirely.

You can only understand the metaphysics of the holocaust once you accept that there is a factual grounding which no one can change.
G: You obviously lack the necessary knowledge of both metaphysics or psychology. Metaphysics is not intrested in 'fact' but in the condition of the possibility that make fact possible...
We can all make what we will of Gilad Atzmon - no doubt he has his detractors and fans — but who can doubt he was born when it say on his birth certificate?

G: Some facts are indeed not very interesting.


Tony Greenstein


From: tony greenstein
To: Gilad Atzmon
Sent: Tue, 2 August, 2011 18:02:51
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

1. Yes of course you can have competing narratives. One which says there was a holocaust but there are many things we will never fully understand about it or one which says there was no such thing or 'only' a few hundred thousand Jews died of typhus. I suspect I know which one you subscribe to.
2. Yes I know that issues of truthfulness are more complicated than the 3 bears but the principle remains the same. Is the holocaust, the decimation of 10m Africans in the Congo, the slave trade etc. just a narrative or is it firmly grounded factually? Otherwise we just get into word games.
3. I am fully aware of what the conditional 'if' means. To be precise it means you cast doubt on something, so when you say 'if Auschwitz was a death camp' or some such you are casting doubt on that fact. Precisely my point! Ah it takes a long time with you Gilad before we manage to arrive at the destination but no matter how many word games you play it is inevitable that the truth will out.
When you say ' if 2+2=4 than 2+1+1=4' then that certainly casts doubt on whether 2+2=4 otherwise you would just come out and say 2+2=4 therefore 2+1+1 also = 4
I am aware of the purpose of the IF statement, having done Mathematics at degree level. So when, to use your example, one says 'If X then Y' then of course there is a question mark over whether X exists in the form posited.
You give the example of 'If the sun is larger than earth and the earth is larger than the moon than the sun is larger than the moon.'
no of course you are not doubting the existence of the sun but you are questioning whether it is larger than the earth. That is the logical statement in question and that is the context.
So when you say
If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’
You are doubting the Nazis wanted the Jews out of the Reich, because after all, according to your logic, if they wanted them out why did they march them back in?
Likewise if you say
'If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war?'
the clear implication is that Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a death factory, otherwise why would Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? The Stockholm Syndrome?
And you confirm this interpretation by asking for 'some conclusive historical evidence.' Nothing metaphysical mind you!
‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’
I am not a member of any synagogue, left or right. You really can't help the anti-Semitic stuff. It's second nature I'm afraid.
Likewise the fact of the holocaust is neither a narrative nor religion. A religion means it is unquestioning. There are many questions concerning the holocaust in the widest sense but you ask none of them and instead stick to the agenda of neo-Nazis and revisionists of doubting whether it happened. This is dump stupidity or malevolence or both. There are all sorts of questions. I mentioned Daniel Goldhagen. He raises many issues, all of them reactionary, about the knowledge of ordinary Germans, their indifference etc. There is considerable research in this area. Comparative history is helpful, but you are stuck with the basics because you can't get it into your head that there is no doubt about the mass exterminations of the Nazis. There is too much evidence. Did Rauf ever deny he was involved in the development of the gas trucks? Was the 'euthenasia' denied? Grow up and start dealing with the things that researchers, some of whom are not Zionists, are doing. In the conflict between anti-Zionists like Vrba and the collaborationist Zionists you not only have nothing to say but you appear to justify the role of the Zionists.
Your whole framework, Jew=Zionist, left Jew = more Zionist is crude and counterproductive. As is the conference that is proposed.
Tony Greenstein



From: Gilad Atzmon
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Wed, 3 August, 2011 10:06:08
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

TG: Yes of course you can have competing narratives. One which says there was a holocaust but there are many things we will never fully understand about it or one which says there was no such thing or 'only' a few hundred thousand Jews died of typhus. I suspect I know which one you subscribe to.
GA: I actually do not have any interest in issues to do with numbers , pornography of death or Holocaust necrophilia, I am after the meaning of the shoa, and as you may know, meanings are in flux.
TG: Yes I know that issues of truthfulness are more complicated than the 3 bears but the principle remains the same. Is the holocaust, the decimation of 10m Africans in the Congo, the slave trade etc. just a narrative or is it firmly grounded factually? Otherwise we just get into word games.
GA: You obviously do not understand what the word narrative stands for. There is no contradiction between the notion of the narrative and factuality. The narrative is manner in which facts are picked and set into a tale.
TG: I am fully aware of what the conditional 'if' means. To be precise it means you cast doubt on something,
GA: Nonsense, you are simply not familiar with hypothetical manner of speech. You are under developed for you age. It is not a crime but nothing to be proud of.
TG: So when you say 'if Auschwitz was a death camp' or some such you are casting doubt on that fact.
G: Try to concentrate-there is a contradiction between the H narrative and the 'death march' one . If the Nazis wanted the Jews out, why did they schlepped them back?
Please come with an answer? Also, please enlighten me and suggest how to pronounce the paradox above without using the word ‘if’.
TG: When you say ' if 2+2=4 then 2+1+1=4' then that certainly casts doubt on whether 2+2=4 otherwise you would just come out and say 2+2=4 therefore 2+1+1 also = 4
GA: No Tony, this is called implication. A conditional manner of speech. the 2 statments have different meanings. I guess that you have to learn deductive logic so you realise that 'if -then' is a pretty basic formula of argumetation known as P->Q
TG: I am aware of the purpose of the IF statement, having done Mathematics at degree level.
GA: Tony, don’t bulshit me with your phantasmic degrees. Along the many press clips about your vast criminal record (shoplifting, credit card theft, vandalism and so on) I came across one clip that says that you were kicked out from university for being a vandal. Knowing you as a compulsive liar, I suggest that we stay at argument level. Please don’t wave the qualifications you do not have. Also if you would have a degree in math, you would know what the world 'if' stand for and how is it used.
TG: So when, to use your example, one says 'If X then Y' then of course there is a question mark over whether X exists in the form posited.
You give the example of 'If the sun is larger than earth and the earth is larger than the moon then the sun is larger than the moon.'
no of course you are not doubting the existence of the sun but you are questioning whether it is larger than the earth. That is the logical statement in question and that is the context.
GA: Again you are not familiar with hypothetical manner of speech. We call it a logical deductive move, it doesn't involve doubt.
Let us look at the following obvious example
If X=Y and Z=Y then X=Z
The above suggest an implication rather than a doubt. Also do you really think that when I say 2+2=4 I cast a doubt?
I must admit that this is the first time I run a philosophical debate with a moron. It is an amazing experience. I sometime under estimate your stupidity.
TG: So when you say
If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’
You are doubting the Nazis wanted the Jews out of the Reich, because after all, according to your logic, if they wanted them out why did they march them back in?
GA: I suggest that the two narrative cannot live together within the same historical setting unless an explanation is provided. I ve the explanation… but what is your explanation tony?
TG: Likewise if you say
'If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war?'
the clear implication is that Auschwitz-Birkenau is not a death factory, otherwise why would Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? The Stockholm Syndrome?
GA: No this suggests a discrepancy at the heart of the discourse. If Jews were aware of Nazi homicidal inclinations, how come they joined them at the end of the war as Holocaust scholar Israel Gutman suggests? Again please explain it to me , you may also argue that Gutman is a liar or idiot. I don’t really care… but just try to come up with something..
TG: And you confirm this interpretation by asking for 'some conclusive historical evidence.' Nothing metaphysical mind you!
G: You still do not understand what metaphysics stands for. There is no contradiction between evidence and metaphysics.
TG: ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’
I am not a member of any synagogue, left or right. You really can't help the anti-Semitic stuff. It's second nature I'm afraid.
G: You are not just a member, you are a failure Rabbi, with an extremely small congregation of people who must be just slightly more limited than yourself..
TG: Likewise the fact of the holocaust is neither a narrative nor religion. A religion means it is unquestioning.
GA: As far as I can see, you invest a lot of energy trying to stop others and myself, in particular, from questioning H and other Jewish narratives. So it is a religion and you are a leading cantor (as well as a Rabbi). You cry for heaven day and night, praying for Gilad to be stopped.
TG: There are many questions concerning the holocaust in the widest sense but you ask none of them and instead stick to the agenda of neo-Nazis and revisionists of doubting whether it happened.
GA: Tony, trying to label me won’t solve your problem. And why do you stop with neo Nazi? What about pedophilia? For the record, I am not associated with any group or school of thought. I advocate freedom of speech. And I indeed support any form of revisionism. I am not afraid of thoughts or ideas, I am far more concerned with tribal morbidity as performed by you and your ilk. And as you know, I am very good in exposing it. You will find out very soon soon that my take on the subject is endorsed by the biggest scholars in the Pls discourse.
TG: This is dump stupidity or malevolence or both. There are all sorts of questions. I mentioned Daniel Goldhagen. He raises many issues, all of them reactionary, about the knowledge of ordinary Germans, their indifference etc. There is considerable research in this area. Comparative history is helpful, but you are stuck with the basics because you can't get it into your head that there is no doubt about the mass exterminations of the Nazis.
GA: So if I understand you correctly, you now plan to tell us what we are allowed to ask… how progressive of you.
TG: There is too much evidence. Did Rauf ever deny he was involved in the development of the gas trucks? Was the 'euthenasia' denied? Grow up and start dealing with the things that researchers, some of whom are not Zionists, are doing.
G: Tony, all of that, has nothing to do with my body of work or research. I argue that history is the art of revising the past. You are against it, Judaism is against it. You operate politically as a Jew, is it a coincidence? I don’t think so! You are simply a Zionist amd a rabid one.
TG: In the conflict between anti-Zionists like Vrba and the collaborationist Zionists you not only have nothing to say but you appear to justify the role of the Zionists.
GA: I am familiar with Vrba report, but the reaction to the report is also very interesting. However, I m not interested in the imaginary debate between Zionists and the so called ‘anti’ Zionists. I am much more interested in the exposure of this debate as a spin of fake pluralism.
TG: Your whole framework, Jew=Zionist, left Jew = more Zionist is crude and counterproductive.
GA: Please be precise. I do not talk about Jews. I say that everyone who identify politically as a Jew is a Zionist. You, for instance operate politically as a Jew and you are indeed a rabid Zionist. Interestingly enough you act like ADL and Hasbara. Only one difference is noticeable, unlike ADL, you are pretty clumsy and astonishingly lame. I guess your operators will have to send someone slightly more sophisticated and soon. It is a shame, because by now, it is almost fun dealing with you


From: tony greenstein
To: Gilad Atzmon
Wednesday 3rd August 12:50



The first thing, if you strike up a correspondence with someone (remember you tried to get Yahoo to take this account down for e-mailing you and here you have written initially on your own account?) is to try and be less arrogant, however difficult it is, as your philosophical writings/meanderings have very little worth or quality about them i.e. they teach us nothing.

1. You cannot find the meaning of something you deny or question factually. That is your problem in that all your meanings come down to Jews this or that. Just as the incident over John Reynolds, the city financier, where you drew your own defamatory meanings of spiritual dejudification over quite harmless remarks and in the process tried, like some faint echo of the past, to suggest that the Jews had some responsibility as Jews for the latest capitalist economic crisis.

2. Again you can't stop the ego getting in the way. I perfectly well understand what a narrative is and also what weasel words are. A narrative might be where facts are chosen or again it might be entirely fictional as opposed to factional. The problem for you is that you don't accept certain facts therefore your narrative is predetermined.

3. I think I have a better understanding of the conditional than you my boy. A mathematical conditionality, which is not what you use, of course rests on the truth of one proposition in order to suggest another proposition or an extension of the first, i.e. it takes as read the first proposition [2=1+1 etc.]
However this is not what you were doing, despite using the conditional, in ot her words you were proposing some universal law but trying to cast doubt on the original proposition. Surely even with your limited logic and understanding you can see this. You say that 'if' Auschwitz was a death camp why did the inmates join the death marches. The obvious and clear implication is that Auschwitz was not a death camp because if it had been then survivors would not have joined their potential murderers.

4. The problem with relying on press clippings from your Zionist friend Mikey (yes you find it easy to work with Zionists sharing all the assumptions they have, Julius etc.) is that they are either misleading or wrong. I was not of course expelled from any higher education and unlike you possess a range of diplomas and degrees. Unlike you I don't boast about my achievements unless people like you press me but I have a degree in Maths and Chemistry from Brighton Polytechnic 1977, an MA in history from Birkbeck 1995-7, a PGCE from St Mary's College Strawberry Hill 1981 and a CPE Diploma in Law 2001 and Diploma in Legal Practice 2002. So understanding your argumentation and seeing through your attempt to create a verbal dust storm is quite easy.

Ah your great contradiction. You say 'there is a contradiction between the H narrative and the 'death march' one . If the Nazis wanted the Jews out, why did they schlepped them back?' That's because you dip into the existing history, pluck a 'fact' if such it was out of context and then generalise from that particular fact, disregarding circumstances to the wider situation. It's called a closed mind and forming your conclusions and then scrabbling round for the evidence.

There is no contradiction at all because it didn't happen. Jews didn't willingly go on the death marches and most of those, except the ill, were forced to go on the Auschwitz march. It was the end of the war, the Russians were coming, the SS had no plan and were panicking and one, mind you one, individual weighed up in his own mind whether he'd be safe left behind in Auschwitz, as was Primo Levy, or safer if he went on the march (fearing all those left behind would be shot). For someone who has already suffered many horrors that is a reasonable dilemma and there is no paradox to use your new found word.

People behave differently even in the most appalling of circumstances. Why did Rudolph Vrba choose to go from Maidenek to Auschwitz? Because he weighed up his chances. Your proposition is absurd and demonstrates sheer malevolence. THe Jews of Budapest were given no choice about the death march to Vienna. You simply pick one alleged 'fact' and pretend that it explains all.

5. You ask about paedophillia. I think that is Israel Shamir's department.

6. Again you try to wriggle: ''If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz'
to most people that statement suggests that maybe they didn't run a death factory at AB but merely a holiday camp or some such. You link the alleged joining of one, yes one, prisoner to a death march to the very purpose and existence of AB as a death camp. The meaning is clear, even to someone as blind and stupid as you. Try just reading your own statements.

Mathematic logic is built upon an acceptance of the original proposition and suggests that if the first is correct then it has further implications. Your proposition cast doubt on the original. Is that so hard to understand?

7. You make a statement that I am a member of a 'left synagogue' because I'm a 'failed Rabbi'. This shows that behind your 'philosophy' and 'metaphysics' there is just a gutter racist. You find it difficult to accept that you can be Jewish and not be in a synagogue or religious. The holocaust itself is no religion, it is the use made of it. Yes metaphysics and evidence are not contradictory. In fact the metaphysical, like a concept of a nation, can only be posited on the basis of the existing material world.

8. You say that history is the art of revising the past. Not necessarily. It is also about adding to it, reintepreting it but you do none of these things. You are challenging key episodes and suggesting they were fraudulent. Because if Yisrael Gutman's statement is correct (Gutman being a leading Zionist historian) then there was no death camp, hence your conditionality. No one else who's read that statemetn disagrees with me so i guess you'll just have to plug away.

9. You state that 'I do not talk about Jews. I say that everyone who identify politically as a Jew is a Zionist. You, for instance operate politically as a Jew and you are indeed a rabid Zionist. Interestingly enough you act like ADL and Hasbara. Only one difference is noticeable, unlike ADL, you are pretty clumsy and astonishingly lame. I guess your operators will have to send someone slightly more sophisticated and soon. It is a shame, because by now, it is almost fun dealing with you.'

But Zionism to you doesn't exist in Israel and presumably nowhere else either. Again you adopt the Zionist argument that to be jewish is to be a Zionist except for a minority of self-haters. Hence, although you call me a rabid Zionist that label applies best to yourself.

And indicative of your sloppy approach - ADL is a thing, an organisation. Hasbara is the output of that and other things, just a small point. You'll have to face it in your conspiratorial world that I have no operators. None at all. My objections to you are just that - personal political initiatives.

But the main point as to why you are objectively a Zionist is that the sole thing you do is to attack Jews who reject Zionism by stating as you do that this is impossible. If someone who is Jewish opposes Zionism as a political creed that makes them a Zionist. Right? And therefore you seek to divide the PS movement between Jews and non-Jews. You are a wholly divisive element, have nothing constructive to say or do, apart from libel and defame. And above all you are dishonest.

You're not interested in history or truth but in selecting a few marginal 'facts' and constructive what you call a narrative that plays into the hands of the Zionists whom you deny exist.

My advice to you is to play the sax and leave politics to others because you are damaging the very cause you purport to support.

Tony Greenstein

On 4 Aug 2011, at 13:18, tony greenstein <tonygreenstein@yahoo.com> wrote:

All responses in colour

---

From: Gilad Atzmon <giladatzmon@mac.com>
To: tony greenstein <tonygreenstein@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 3 August, 2011 23:25:06
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

On 3 Aug 2011, at 12:50, tony greenstein wrote:

The first thing, if you strike up a correspondence with someone (remember you tried to get Yahoo to take this account down for e-mailing you and here you have written initially on your own account?) is to try and be less arrogant, however difficult it is, as your philosophical writings/meanderings have very little worth or quality about them i.e. they teach us nothing.

G: Greenstein stop projecting, I never tried to close your account or blog, I want people to see your ugliness and believe me the do ..

Ah but you did, just a little lie but a lie nonetheless

re the worthiness of my work...you will have an unpleasant surprise soon,,,my book is already praised by the most important intellects and academics in the movement...

The ego rides again. The most important intellects and academics. I wonder who they might be? Dr David Irving or Professor David Duke? Didn't realise there was an importance guage.

1. You cannot find the meaning of something you deny or question factually. That is your problem in that all your meanings come down to Jews this or that. Just as the incident over John Reynolds, the city financier, where you drew your own defamatory meanings of spiritual dejudification over quite harmless remarks and in the process tried, like some faint echo of the past, to suggest that the Jews had some responsibility as Jews for the latest capitalist economic crisis.

G: this was actually a nice incident, Reynolds tried to disown his words and attempted to give them a new meaning. However, my Zio punch paper is all over the place and is included in my new book... by the way as far as i remember the word Jews is not mentioned in the paper..

It may have been nice to you but it showed your anti-semitic ugliness. Trying to blame Jews for the recession. Really pathetic if you think the economic crisis was caused by an ethnic or religious group rather than the workings of capitalism and its bankers - whatever affilation.

The fact is that you had to make a grovelling apology but maybe it was the prospect of your purse being hurt?!!

2. Again you can't stop the ego getting in the way. I perfectly well understand what a narrative is and also what weasel words are.

G: I guess that you may not grasp what 'understanding' stands for.

A narrative might be where facts are chosen or again it might be entirely fictional as opposed to factional. The problem for you is that you don't accept certain facts therefore your narrative is predetermined.

3. I think I have a better understanding of the conditional than you my boy. A mathematical conditionality, which is not what you use, of course rests on the truth of one proposition in order to suggest another proposition or an extension of the first, i.e. it takes as read the first proposition [2=1+1 etc.]

Precisely. It rests on another proposition which in your essay 'if Auschwitz existed...' meant doubting that Auschwitz was a death camp. It takes a long time to get the truth out of you Gilad, despite all the petty insults and arrogance I expect of someone who is somewhat rather more stupid than he gives himself credit for. So the proposition quite simply, in the light of your 'compelling' evidence about Jews joining the death marches freely, is that Auschwitz wasn't a death camp.

G: sorry to disappoint you again, but you do not know what you are talking about. The subject we are dealing with is not within the realm of mathematics but within the realm of philosophy and deductive logic..

Truthfulness in mathematic is a complicated issue and you are the last to understand it, you don't even know whether you are a formalist or a realist ...

we were dealing with the meaning of the word 'if' and its usage. something you fail to grasp for some reason...

Ah yes, Atzmon the all-knowing ignoramus a master of all trades and a jack of none!!

However this is not what you were doing, despite using the conditional, in ot her words you were proposing some universal law but trying to cast doubt on the original proposition. Surely even with your limited logic and understanding you can see this. You say that 'if' Auschwitz was a death camp why did the inmates join the death marches. The obvious and clear implication is that Auschwitz was not a death camp because if it had been then survivors would not have joined their potential murderers.

4. The problem with relying on press clippings from your Zionist friend Mikey (yes you find it easy to work with Zionists sharing all the assumptions they have, Julius etc.) is that they are either misleading or wrong.

The crap is that you and Mikey, a notorious Zionist worked together. Collaborating with Zionists is nothing knew to you. I have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of. As I said, I could have poisoned more people than Bluebeard but it would have nothing to do with my disagreement with you. Fact is that you reach for this because you have no other arguments. This was what lost it for you at Indymedia when you started attacking me personally over quite irrelevant matters as to whether I have a conviction for shoplifting when most people in such a situation have similar things. It's only insufferable little petit-bourgeois like you who take offence or in your case as a means to hide your own dishonesty. So yes, I have a perfectly good conscience, whereas you have none at all, using people and spitting them out. Hence why I enjoy baiting you and upsetting your arrrangements. Even poor Mary Rizzo got the treatment. You are really a pretty despicable character Atzmon. But with a bit of luck you may make the grade as a panto villain.

G: stop the crap.. you are a criminal with a vast record. You didn't try to deny it to the court. in fact you took me to court because you desperately wanted to hide your past...but there you are..your shamful past and present are bonded together... you are pretty much screwed up on that front.. and again , i am the only one who could help you...

I was not of course expelled from any higher education and unlike you possess a range of diplomas and degrees.

G: in fact you don't know a thing about my degrees, because unlike you I don't need to present them.. People out there know that I am a clever boy.. However, I have a press clip that confirms that you were expelled..

Press clips can sometimes be wrong. I repeat I've never been expelled from any academic institution, so go back to sources you fool. That's what a historian does except you aren't a historian either.

Yes everyone knows how clever you are Atzmon. Go to the top of the class. All I can say is that you must have been an insufferable brat when you were young but you still are insufferable.

Unlike you I don't boast about my achievements unless people like you press me but I have a degree in Maths and Chemistry from Brighton Polytechnic 1977, an MA in history from Birkbeck 1995-7, a PGCE from St Mary's College Strawberry Hill 1981 and a CPE Diploma in Law 2001 and Diploma in Legal Practice 2002. So understanding your argumentation and seeing through your attempt to create a verbal dust storm is quite easy.

G: i am totally puzzled, with all those alleged degrees you couldn't find a job and support your family...Greeny'le, you are either a liar or a failure, let me guess,, you are actually both...

Give me a break...

Oh I work very hard as you have found out! That's why your Freiburg conference is already in crisis. One speaker out, another to announce and yet more dissension in the ranks. You aren't good news Atzmon, you and your little neo-Nazi coterie. People are putting distance between you

---

From: Gilad Atzmon
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Thu, 4 August, 2011 13:14:36
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

Greenstein we had enough I guess. I answered all your questions , I ll consider hosting a debate with you when the book is out, tell me whether you are interested?

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: tony greenstein
To: Gilad Atzmon
Sent: Thu, 4 August, 2011 22:01:15
Subject: Re: Conference on Historical Revisionism

Yes I thought you might have had enough. I may well be depending on the format, chair etc.

tony g