tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post2663177085497142931..comments2024-03-28T04:26:49.354+00:00Comments on Tony Greenstein's Blog: Book Review – Labour, The Anti-Semitism Crisis and the Destroying of an MPTony Greensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-67567873796478861822021-09-30T20:47:23.562+01:002021-09-30T20:47:23.562+01:00You are not listening Sameer Antisemitism does no...You are not listening Sameer Antisemitism does not have to mean someone hates Jews. It could mean that someone thinks them inferior to non Jews or doesn't like to mix with them.<br /><br />The fact that Zionists misuse the definition is no reason to therefore abandon it.<br /><br />Atzmon is an anti-Semite because he essentialises Jews, he holds that all Jews are Zionists other than a couple of esoteric categories and he believes that since Zionism is the genuine national representative of all jews being an anti-Zionist Jew is impossible.<br /><br />In essence he holds to an inverse Zionist position which is not surprising since he came from a Zionist background. His voluminous essays have no impact and he has no effect and I am not surprise that he opposes BDS because he is mainly concerned with his ego.<br /><br />I am not into demonising someone but explaining them and their characteristics. Why do you find that so difficlt.<br /><br />I am aware of how Zionists brand any critics of Zionism as anti-Semitic. I prefer a simple definition: 'Hostility to or prejudice against Jews'. You can find it in the Oxford English dictionary.<br /><br />I know you like the sound of your own voice but I suggest you listen to someone who is wiser than you viz. Ali Abunima, Professor Joseph Massad and other Palestinians who disavowed Atzmon because of the damage he is doing to the Palestinian cause or was doing.<br /><br />Atzmon bases everything on a fixed idea 'Jewishness' and ascribes everything Israel does to that phenomenon. This isn't terribly different from Nazi racial characteristics, which of course Zionism reflected. <br /><br />If you can't see it fine. But don't spend a thousand words as a substitute<br /><br />Granting No Quarter - A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon<br /><br />https://uspcn.org/2012/03/13/granting-no-quarter-a-call-for-the-disavowal-of-the-racism-and-antisemitism-of-gilad-atzmon/Tony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-46379945773358305582021-09-29T07:58:20.535+01:002021-09-29T07:58:20.535+01:00Take for example this report in main-stream media....Take for example this report in main-stream media.<br /><br />Notice how the pro-Israel and Jewish affiliations of the saboteurs is not — and dare not — be mentioned.<br /><br />I am suggesting that this is also an outcome of this tactic of destroying the reputation and career of anyone by labelling them an ‘anti-semite’.<br /><br />And I am suggesting it has to stop. We as a society shouldn’t allow it. And we definitely shouldn't do it ourselves. <br /><br />We can criticise and discuss behaviour and attitudes as anti-semitic, sure. That is OK. <br /><br />But we need to stop destroying the lives of people by FALSELY and unfairly summing them up with this extremely devastating, destructive ad hominem attack.<br />https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html?fbclid=IwAR0sV9Y5WjJm1JG47fGkYkW5ta9N5QZZFMz9tE4xMC0yYrBxCVeefM3-xdU<br /><br />MBWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00066358609286880395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-15411731395138213382021-09-28T08:53:21.188+01:002021-09-28T08:53:21.188+01:00Thanks for your reply. But I think you also are no...Thanks for your reply. But I think you also are not really responding to what I wrote but to your own interpretation of what I wrote. One that I ask you to consider whether it is a misinterpretation.<br /><br />E.g. I totally agree with you when you wrote: “clearly you can hold anti-Semitic views regardless of one's family”. So you appear to be arguing against your own misunderstanding.<br /><br />E.g. You wrote: “Criticising Atzmon as antisemitic says nothing about the principle of free speech”. This is to avoid my point and argue against your own ‘strawman’ misrepresentation of it. I gave Atzmon as just one example of something that you appear to not understand. I also gave the example of Ken Loach, Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, you yourself and even Paul Eisen. OF COURSE it is acceptable to “criticise” someone’s statements and/or attitudes as antisemitic. I am arguing it is neither intellectually acceptable — nor good for society — to allow the demonisation of someone with a very damaging and almost irreversible slur for those statements. Especially when those statement can be open to misinterpretation and even deliberate distortion. <br /><br />E.g. your castigation of what you called my “definition” of anti-semitism, in response to my explaination of why I think you attacking Gilad Atzmon as an ‘anti-semite’ is a rather ridiculous, ad hominem logical fallacy. <br />I conceded that he wrote things that are classified as anti-semitic. So to reply with one rather convoluted example of that and then expect people to conclude he does hate Jews BECAUSE they are Jewish, is in my opinion repeating exactly the behaviour I suggested we all desist from.<br /><br />So I again ask you to consider that you have misunderstood what I wrote.<br />Atzmon is just one example.<br />I wrote about discrediting people as ‘anti-semites’ in order to discredit their statements. I am suggesting we as a society stop allowing and indulging in that and instead just refute specific arguments or statements, rather than ignoring them and lazily attacking the person. <br /><br />Because if we don’t, we get the situation we have now, where anyone can be demonised and discredited using this accusation, even Jewish people who have fought racism all their adult lives. <br /><br />I am arguing that a person can have opinions that are considered by some to be anti-semitic without having a prejudice against all Jews because they are Jewish. Can we agree on that much?<br /><br />And then I suggested that a viewpoint and an understanding can be critical of a group, of a nation, of a race, of a historical narrative and not be motivated by racial prejudice.<br />Do you disagree with that?<br /><br />Then, your example of one statement by Atzmon that you believe shows an anti-semitic prejudice. Well, yes. Either I must be politically blind, as I couldn’t see in it any entrenched anti-Jewish prejudice. <br />Or, perhaps it is you that has a blind-spot here, which would explain you are refusing to accept his clarification because of your own subliminal prejudices. 🤔😉<br /><br />Finally, can we agree that we can ONLY fairly and accurately call someone an ‘anti-semite’ if they discriminates against, or are hostile towards, or are prejudiced against Jews BECAUSE they are Jewish.<br /><br />MBWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00066358609286880395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-11475537609907959352021-09-28T00:37:47.829+01:002021-09-28T00:37:47.829+01:00You are illogical MBW on many levels.
i. Criticis...You are illogical MBW on many levels.<br />i. Criticising Atzmon as antisemitic says nothing about the principle of free speech. I am merely exercising my right of free speech!<br />ii. Otto Weininger's family was also Jewish but it is acknowledged that the man Hitler described as the only good Jew was an antisemite. Clearly you can hold anti-Semitic views regardless of one's family.<br />iii. I more than anyone have opposed the weaponising of antisemitism. However that doesn't mean that antisemitism doesn't exist merely that Zionists and imperialists use it to demonise their opponents.<br />iv. YOu engage is a reductio ad absurdum. Since when have I ever said that to be an antisemite you have to hate all Jews? That is a cretinous argument. It's like saying that you can't be a Black anti-racist unless you hate all Black people. As Himmler said, all Germans have their favourite Jew even if the others are swine.<br />To be anti-Semitic you have only to display hostility to or prejudice against Jews as Jews. The fact that you except some Jews from your antagonism is irrelevant. Your definition would exonerate most racists.<br /><br />You say you have never seen anything antisemitic from Atzmon. Well given your definition of antisemitism that's not surprising. Let us take his article 'Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch<br /><br />Atzmon cited John Reynolds, Chair of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group as saying that:<br /><br />"Above all we need more individuals to make a stand. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York should go further and call for more Christians to work in the city." The Observer 28.9.08.<br /><br />This was in the middle of the financial crash of 2008/9 which Atzmon blamed on Jewish 'swindlers'. How did Atzmon interpret the above remarks?<br /><br />'One may wonder what Reynolds refers to when calling for more ‘Christians to work in the City’... By pleading the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to send more Christians to the City he may try to suggest to us that our financial world must be spiritually de-Judified. I must admit that it took me by complete surprise to read such a suggestion in the politically correct Guardian.’<br /><br />It also came as a complete surprise to John Reynolds who, once he’d recovered, threatened to sue for libel. Atzmon therefore issued a ‘Clarification’ and fulsome apology.<br /><br />‘Clarification: In the course of an article entitled "Credit Crunch or rather Zio Punch?" I recently made a comment about Mr John Reynolds, the Chief Executive of Reynolds Partners and chairman of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group. I suggested that some people may think that his call in The Observer to send more Christians to the City was a plea for the financial world to be "spiritually de-Judified". I want to make it clear that I did not intend to suggest that Mr Reynolds was anti-Semitic or in any way hostile to Jewish people or those of the Jewish faith and I am sorry if my comment was understood by anybody in that way. Mr Reynolds has asked me to clarify the position and I am happy to do so. I would like to apologise for any distress caused.’<br /><br />If you can't see why only an antisemite could have interpreted Reynold's remarks as being a call for 'de-Judaification' then you are politically blindTony Greensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14300640929161205370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-32302302714580234702021-09-27T22:38:29.707+01:002021-09-27T22:38:29.707+01:00Well, I have not read his book. So unless I see a ...Well, I have not read his book. So unless I see a comment in its context I don’t see how you have refuted my position. <br />I have read many of his blog articles. I have even debated with him on his Facebook page.<br /> I have never seen anything from him that shows a prejudice against ALL Jews because they are Jewish by him. On the contrary. So I think my point remains unanswered by you. You have just repeated the accusation against him without providing ANY specific supporting evidence for it. <br />In other words, you have just done EXACTLY what I suggest we as a society desist from doing: viz. attacking the messenger instead of logically and reasonably refuting their message.MBWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00066358609286880395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-46576282649215483032021-09-27T20:33:30.092+01:002021-09-27T20:33:30.092+01:00In his book "The Wandering Who? A Study of Je...In his book "The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics" Gilad Atzmon makes many statements that can be legitimately considered antisemitic. In fact you don't even need to go much further than the contents page as one of the chapters is entitled "Credit Crunch or Zio Punch". <br /><br />Basically Atzmon appears to be using "Zionist" as a euphemism for Jewish and equating Zionism, corruption within the financial sector and Jewishness in a manner that is indistinguishable from antisemitism.<br /><br />In short, regardless of his personal history or intentions Atzmon has said many things that can be legitimately considered antisemitic, which is not case for any of the people that Tony defends, so Tony is not being inconsistent in the way you suggest. Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474642894138357690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-640441812647446166.post-34701754356149051302021-09-27T08:38:17.243+01:002021-09-27T08:38:17.243+01:00The problem with your approach and fixed position ...The problem with your approach and fixed position as I see it Tony is that you ALSO are using the ‘ad hominem’ logical fallacy to make your point. <br />You rightly talk about the principle of ‘free speech’ being eroded with the accusation of ‘anti-semitism’ becoming a weaponised smear to discredit perceived opponents, but then YOU use it yourself. <br />Obviously Gilad Atzmon can NOT fairly and meaningfully be regarded as an ‘anti-semite’ in any open and reasonable society! His whole family are Jewish! He himself was raised as a Jew in Israel. Do you seriously believe that he has a prejudice against all his close family and friends who are Jewish? Can you not see how it is a ridiculous accusation to make against him?<br />Yes, he expresses views that are currently taboo and classified as ‘anti-semitic’. But I suggest that merely shows how society has become out of touch with reality and demonises dissent. A viewpoint and an understanding can be critical of a group, of a nation, of a race, of a historical narrative and not be motivated by racial prejudice. If you really are a champion of free-speech I hope you will acknowledge this truth and consider desisting from yourself indulging in the easy and lazy way of debating sensitive and controversial issues by attacking the person rather than the message. If its not OK against you, against Chris Williamson, against Jackie Walker, against Ken Loach, against, Ken Livingstone, against Marc Wadsworth, against Jeremy Corbyn, etc., etc., then it surely must not be OK against Gilad Atzmon, against Paul Eisner, etc.<br /><br />I suggest, and would like readers of this to consider, that WE as a society have to stop permitting the use of this politicised, weaponised slur that increasingly has nothing to do with combatting genuine racism, but has more to do with discrediting perceived opponents. MBWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00066358609286880395noreply@blogger.com