lets take a look at his personal blog

first we have him complaining about how ANC members (would that be nonwhites?) get all the good jobs these days

So! Let them give jobs! Eskom CEO, Transnet CEO, SABC CEO,… You name it they give it. OK, buddies get the top jobs, we’ve got a life to live. Ah, but you see there’s the rub! We pay for it, through the nose through the pocket, everyway you can think of.

It’s through some mundane unconnected experience that we often stumble upon truth. In December I was on the road from Jo’burg toCape Town, following the rails, fifteen hundred kms of pristine perfect railroad infrastructure. A train spotter’s dream, you would think. What should I tell you – a whole day next to the lines and not a train spotted. But on the roads traffic. Big traffic: containers, abnormal loads, rumbling juggernauts, double-decker Translux coaches, carrying people equipment commodities goods between Gauteng hub and coast, burning fuel at R10.50 to the litre, thundering up and down the devastated highway. And next to the frenetic road train tracks demurely gleam in the sun. Oh bitter irony, oh height of blindness and folly.

http://stevenapfel.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/what-are-we-paying-for-deployment/

then a condemnation of Arab Christians

http://stevenapfel.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/a-bias-thicker-than-faith/

I would think that with current events being what they are that pony will be brought out of the stable again sometime soon?

but thanks for keeping us informed on Apfels thoughts

So Apfel is a former apartheidist....how?

And bringing up Christian persecution throughout the mideast is bigoted...how? Apfel isn't criticizing just Arab Christians, but all Christians worldwide who refuse to do/say anything but attack Jews.

...is that you cannot see the anti-Jewish bigotry Apfel writes about in the OP.

As for the ANC and Tutu, do you think criticism of corrupt government policy is bigoted? If you do, then just about all criticism of Israel is just as bigoted.

Because the message is generally embedded in a particular context supported by a messenger, and if the messenger is promoting generally bad viewpoints, then it's fair enought to attack them. 'You are attacking the messenger' is a valid complaint when dealing with a purely factual message, but not when dealing with an opinion piece.

I don't know enough about Steve Apfel to be able to comment on him; and am not attacking him in particular - the criticism of him may be just or unjust. But I will certainly attack messengers, who are generally supporting a right-wing ideology; who are in favour of the Iraq war or opposed to social safety nets or want Romney to defeat Obama.

And you, or at least the articles you quote, attack messengers as much as the rest of us do. Many of the articles your OPs do not so much defend Israel positively, as attribute antisemitism or other bad motives to its opponents. If Azurnoir just brought up Apfel's supposed past support for apartheid as an argument against him, the writers of articles that you quote have attacked Goldstone on very similar grounds.

This is not saying that you shouldn't 'attack messengers'; everyone does and it's often relevant. But one can't say that it's OK to say, e,g., 'Richard Falk's views are dodgy because he's an antisemite' and at the same time not OK to say 'Barry Rubin's views are dodgy because he supports Romney over Obama and accepts the 'Eurabia' myth'. Personally, I would agree with both of the latter statements!

...if you're not in general agreement with their beliefs? What if their opinion is spot-on?

Do you not recognize the difference b/w attacking the messenger vs. attacking the messenger while demolishing his/her arguments at the same time? The former is pretty much what all so-called pro-Palestinians do. Not so much the latter.

'Kasrils being in the ANC is enough to call into question...

...just about anything they do.'

Isn't that attacking the messenger (or actor) rather than the specific message or action?

As regards what I'd do 'if their opinion is spot-on': it is unusual, though possible, that an opinion embedded in a generally abhorrent belief system would be truly 'spot-on'. Some details of it might be correct, but usually these are embedded in something nasty: e.g. hawkishness, or ultra-isolationism that exudes bigotry, or a harsh attitude toward poor and vulnerable people. Thus, I believe very strongly that the Iraq war was utterly wrong. The BNP also believes that the Iraq war was utterly wrong; so does David Duke. Does that mean their opinion is 'spot on' or that one should quote them on it? Not really. They are right that the war was wrong, but they think it is wrong because they are opposed to any 'foreign entanglements', not because they are peace-lovers or because they have a sophisticated awareness of the reasons why this war was unjustified and counterproductive.

Occasionally a bad messenger may, however, be genuinely right about a specific issue. For example, David Cameron, whom I detest as a politician, supports gay marriage. I think that he is right to do so. However, I would not quote him on the subject without a lot of qualifications. I might say, 'I think Cameron is a dangerous and incompetent leader, and his economic policies are a disaster to most people, and he is cruelly allowing his Ministers to trample all over poor people and the sick and disabled, and to plan the sell-off of the public services - BUT he is right on this one specific area of gay marriage'. Cristina Odone, a British right-wing journalist whom I detest, is pro-vaccination. I might say, "Cristina Odone is on the wrong side of almost all issues, and nasty about it, BUT she is right about vaccination'. But I would not imply that these people are respectable individuals because I agree with them on some specific issue, and I would usually try to quote people with generally decent views preferentially, if possible.

...that he cannot be taken seriously on any issue involving Israel. If he makes a good point every now and then, that's fine. He's still a bigot who should be ejected from the so-called anti-racist, progressive, pro-Palestinian movement. As should fellow bigots like Finkelstein, Atzmon, Booth, Galloway, Kaufman, Loewenstein, Barat, Tonge, and the trash who frequent EI and Mondoweiss. The fact is that all those bigots routinely participate in, and have significant roles (sometimes leadership) in popular anti-zionist venues run by the ISM, PSC, FGM, and BDS.

It is those organizations just mentioned that represent the anti-Zionist movement worldwide. Correct me if I'm wrong. And that's one big reason anti-Zionism is anti-semitism in disguise. If you take out the nazi comparisons, stereotypes, libels, elders of zion, etc... that leaves a very minuscule <1% anti-Zionist movement.

It means members of the African National congress , like Ronnie Kasrils , who is white and Jewish .

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Kasrils

( where did you get your information from ?)

he is so 'admired' here by some but to imply that the ANC is largely White is misleading isn't it?

here is the ANC's website one can draw their own conclusions

http://www.anc.org.za/provinces.php

anyother nits to pick?

ANC members does not mean "non whites"

Thanks !

BTW thanks for ignoring the "does" in my comment, it speaks volumes

What are these "volumes" ?

I am totally confused . I have NO idea what you are talking about.

despite the fact that there are more non-Jewish Israelis than there are white people within the ANC, I would wager.

HIMMTSAR

...just about anything they do.

Here's Kasrils with a real doozy about what Jews tell their children:
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/jews-told-children-not-waste-time-on-blacks/

So criticizing an organization he's in is bigoted while his comments are not.

Makes sense.

If you are Jewish, it goes without saying that you don't hold malevolent intent or bigoted feeling against Jews as a group.

...why can't Jews be, especially loathsome nazi-supporting trash like Gilad Atzmon?

Atzmon is a madman(and a largely irrelevant one, so why do you obsess about him when what he does really doesn't have any effect on anything)but he doesn't want his own community(or group of communities)wiped out.

And I don't know anything about Bridget Gabriel(though I'll now be trying to find out about her)so that particular comparison doesn't actually mean anything to me at the moment.

...the late Bobby Fisher?

Why do you obsess so much about Atzmon anyway? He has no significant support base, has no influence in any movement, and is considered a head case by pretty much everybody. He doesn't matter and you can't hold all critics of Israeli security policies, or even all anti-zionists, responsible for his craziness.

He's the sort that's best dealt with by being ignored. What he does can mainly be characterized as "attention-getting behavior"-logically, the way to make him go away is to cease GIVING him attention. The man is no threat to anyone...he's just a pathetic, deluded nobody. It serves no purpose to rhetorically bash other people, people who have nothing to do with him, over the head about his spewings.

Do you agree Atzmon is an anti-Semite? Yes or No?

I routinely bring up Atzmon because he's well respected by folks like Richard Falk, Walt/Mearsheimer, and the goons from the ISM, FGM, and BDS. His eviction from the PSC came after many years of his "insanity". WTF took so long?

I despise what he says and you know that. That should be more than enough. It doesn't matter what words are used to denounce and despise the guy. You make it sound like Atzmon is leading the anti-zionist movement. He isn't. He's out there by himself in nowhere land. I have never seen any evidence that the last three groups you listed ever supported Atzmon, as far as that goes.

Fischer was a simple one-time case. He expressed antisemitic words but he was also deeply mentally ill. I'll agree that a mentally disturbed person can say offensive and intolerable things. That's all that needs be said.

You always use far more venom in these threads than is needed. The people you obsessively denounce in these threads aren't monsters, and your insistence that people use the exact words you want used is pointless.

And the fact that you cannot admit Atzmon is an anti-Semite destroys any credibility you have in this discussion. You won't admit it because if you did, you'd have to condemn virtually the entire anti-zionist movement that's been in love with this 'mad man' for years. You'd have to address a significant percentage of those within the movement who still support him.

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:20 AM - Edit history (2)

I condemned him in the last post. It doesn't matter what words I used to condemn him. Only Gentiles can be antisemites.

To be an antisemite, a person has to want Jews to be oppressed or possibly even wiped off of the Earth. To hold such views and personally BE Jewish would mean such a person would want HIMSELF to be wiped off the Earth-it's not as if a person like that would think he was going to be given a special pass by the next Hitler. Atzmon, while he doesn't like his origins or the state he was born in, doesn't actually seem to want his own demise. What he does say and feel is bad enough. And no one except Atzmon should be denounce for what Atzmon says and does, especially since he doesn't have mass support for his views among any group of people.

It's enough to say that Atzmon is a delusional idiot. It's enough to say that he's hateful and wrong and has no place in responsible political discussion of any sorts.

Now you're saying Jews can't be anti-Semites, only gentiles can.

Explain?

Every single leading expert and organization WRT anti-semitism (from the ADL and EU definition, to Simon Wiesenthal, Robert Wistrich and Eli Wiesel) disagree with you. Whose definition are you going with, and why ignore the overwhelming majority Jewish view on what antisemitism entails? You think non-Jews and less than 1% of all Jews worldwide get to define what antisemitism is?

What do you find wrong with the ADL, EU, Wiesel, Wistrich, Wiesenthal, etc.?

that Atzmon is an obnoxious, self-loathing asshole?

And why do you keep acting as if Atzmon is the VOICE of the antizionist movement? He isn't. Atzmon's just one sad, irrelevant man. I denounce him and hope everyone will ignore him, because that's the best way to make him go away.

Can't you just admit that Atzmon doesn't matter? And that nobody else is to blame for him?

Bobby Fischer was a singular case. His story is his story and has no implications for anybody else.

Therefore, when people make Nazi comparisons, deny or minimize the Holocaust, call hook-nosed Jews Christ Killers, resurrect the old Elders of Zion conspiracy theory, claim Kikes own Wall Street, Hollywood, the Media, and Governments worldwide.....that's not antisemitism in your opinion.

Despite what every expert, bar none, on anti-semitism believes.

Seriously?

If those things aren't antisemitic, and the anti-Zionist movement doesn't explicitly call for the murder of Jews (except for Barat/Loewenstein), then it can be claimed the movement isn't anti-Zionist.

Yes?

I don't need to call Atzmon an antisemite to prove that. Give the grand inquisitor tactics a rest.

Atzmon is ugly and self-loathing, but he's also irrelevant and nobody BUT Atzmon is responsible for Atzmon. OK?

...as in those examples shouldn't be labeled anti-semites, especially not Jews who spew like that. In order to be an anti-semite, they must call for the oppression or mass murder of Jews.

That's what you wrote earlier, right?

Is that still your opinion?

Otherwise, I don't see why you don't *need* to call Atzmon an anti-semite even though he clearly is. Why the apprehension?

Atzmon has said anti-Jewish things. I agree with you on that. I just don't see why I have to denounce on YOUR command, or why it's so important to use the EXACT words you want said. It's enough to say Atzmon's a fool.

What bothers me about your Atzmon obsession is that you blame other people for him...that you imply that entire groups are somehow responsible for what he says...that you act like he has this massive following and is somehow going to seize power or something. And frankly, I don't think you would ever accept that any of the groups you use Atzmon against could ever denounce him to your satisfaction-so I don't blame anyone for not bothering. If they said everything you wanted about the guy, you'd demand they say more. And more. And more. And that they not talk about anything OTHER than Atzmon and antisemitism.

I just feel that you attach far more importance to Atzmon than he deserves. And that, in doing so, you reward him with attention that he DOESN'T deserve. Atzmon simply isn't WORTH obsessing about...and nobody other than him is to blame for what he says.

You are using Atzmon to bash people who have nothing to do with his existence OR with his views. I don't agree with those people(a single-state isn't workable), but they aren't evil. They simply support something that isn't a practical possibility. And the anti-zionist movement is not in a position to decide the outcome of the I/P dispute. Nor are they likely to be. And hysteria about the existence of anti-zionism doesn't achieve any positive results.

The best way to make Israel secure is to press Netanyahu and the other violent extremists in his government to stop doing the divisive and ugly things they are doing. Netanyahu and his mob are harming Israel by expanding settlements and by blaming ALL Palestinians for the actions of the extremists on their side. They are doing FAR more damage to Israel and the Zionist cause than any group of campus leftists who call themselves antizionists.
Just once, shira, just ONCE...fight the REAL enemy.

...you have a different definition of it.

Why?

Do you not agree that railing against Jews like that incites people who want Jews dead, or at least oppressed and put in their place?

Atzmon was ejected from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) due to being an anti-semitic bigot. Abunimah and his friends obviously agree with all the experts on anti-semitism WRT Atzmon. They get it.

Do you think it wrong for the PSC to obsess about Atzmon and toss him out, which angered so many others in the movement who disagreed? Do you feel the PSC shouldn't have denounced him like they did? That they shouldn't have attached more importance to Atzmon than he deserved?

Atzmon simply isn't an important figure and he has no following at all.

I support what the PSC did and that's all that needs to be done.

John Mearsheimer:

'Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their 'Jewishness.' Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.’

Richard Falk:

‘Gilad Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity and passionate advocate of justice for the Palestinian people. It is a transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.’

....Ramzy Baroud, Lauren Booth, Kathleen Christison, Paul Larudee (ISM), and Ken O'Keefe, and James Petras
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/12/13/complaint-gilad-atzmon-2

That alone shows the anti-Zionist movement is not in any way a movement hypersensitive to bigotry against Jews.

The PSC in January of this year was contemplating whether Holocaust denial and bringing up blood libels (akin to medieval Jews poisoning the wells and Jews' use of Christian children's blood for Matzah) counted as racism/bigotry/anti-semitism.

How can anyone defend that obnoxious bile?

Reminds me of the UCU decision not to use the EUMC definition of antisemitism, b/c it would render just about all their criticism as bigotry. The bigots want anti-semitism defined THEIR way.



Simply burying one's head in the sand and denying anything's wrong won't cut it.

To be an antisemite, a person has to want Jews to be oppressed or possibly even wiped off of the Earth.

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Case in point, have you ever heard someone tell a disgusting, racist joke? Is it possible for someone to tell such a joke without desiring the death of all black people on the planet?

What about someone who believes racist, prejudicial things about black people? That they are dumber than whites, that they are prone to violence and that their desires are more base than other races'? Is that person a racist? I'd say so. Does that mean he wants to kill all black people? Does it even mean he hates black people? No, on both counts.

Bobby Fischer would be a perfect example.

Enough vilification. Enough demonization. Enough hysteria. Give it a rest.

Antisemitism is discrimination against or hatred of people who are Jewish. Israel is simply a state that claims to be Jewish.

You start paranoia threads like this over and over and over again...and in doing that, you actually disrespect the suffering of the REAL victims of antisemitism...those who were persecuted in Europe in the past. Benjamin Netanyahu and the West Bank settlers are not victims of persecution.

And once again, Israel is NOT synonymous with "the Jews". Israel is a country. Jewish people live there, and also in many other countries around the world. Those people do NOT unquestioningly agree with everything the State of Israel does, and their survival does not hinge on that state being exempted from open and full international debate about its actions.

Criticism of what Israel does to Palestinians is almost NEVER antisemitic. The overwhelming majority of such criticism is legitimate and fair comment about the oppression of one country by another.

Please stop making everything into "they hate the Jews! they hate the Jews!"

The vast majority of those who disagree with you about the I/P issue are NOT monsters and do not want to finish Hitler's job. Please stop insulting people who have done nothing wrong.

And Israel does not have to maintain the occupation OR expand the settlements just to protect its majority population.

Firstly...the prohibitive majority of critics of Israel are also outspoken opponents of antisemitism and all other forms of bigotry(at least if we're talking about the North American and European left, both of which take a total anti-bigotry and anti-oppression line).

Secondly, all of these groups make consistent distinctions between Israel and Jewish people. Most of the world make a clear distinction on that point...it's the Israeli government and some of its supporters that prefer to blur the difference there. There should always be a clear line of differentiation...and the Israeli government and the State of Israel, once again, should NEVER be spoken of as "the Jews"...because you can't assume that every Jewish person supports the policies of the Israeli government, even among the majority that are Zionists, and because Jewish people outside of Israel aren't responsible for what the State of Israel does...which is something most of the world accepts.

As to Zionists and Israel...I'm not sure what distinctions you'd like to see there. The point of the Zionist movement was to create the State of Israel...of course, most Zionists live in countries other than Israel and there are Zionists or supporters of Zionism who are Christian, athiest, agnostic, or holders of other religious convictions.

I started out to fight but then thought why, who really that isn't already of the same mind set believes this anyway, and as a wise man told me it seems a hobby or (my word) avocation for some here, if it gives comfort to believe this so be it

...when you have such a warped definition of antisemitism? You're basically letting bigots define the term rather than the Jews themselves.

These bigots only focus on Jews and Jewish organizations in Israel. Never Arabs or Arab organizations/political parties in Israel like Haneen Zoabi or the Balad party (which even you admitted is pretty bad). The bigots focus only on Jews/Zionists.

And give up the crap about Jews who blindly accept Israeli policy. Liberal Zionist Jews do not do so and they are not the ones being linked to antisemitism. Only the most rabid pro-settler types do that.

And Israel would cease to be a democracy if Balad were banned...because that would mean the people who support it would have no one to vote for. In a democracy, you don't get to tell people "you can only vote for the people we'll LET you vote for".

It's not bigotry to refuse to obsess on a party that will never win more than three or four seats in the Knesset.

The real issue you have, shira, is not that some groups you disagree with are bigots...the ones you mention aren't...it's that they don't obsess on the things YOU think they're obligated to obsess on. There's a difference between saying "these groups don't do what I want to make them do" on the one hand, and saying "these groups are bigots".

No one in the movement challenges her.

Look up her role WRT the Mavi Marmara incident.

So like Atzmon (until March 2012) no one in the greater anti-Zionist movement is upset with her bigotry. Not enough to say or write anything. Sorta like Helen Thomas.

What kind of anti-racists who fight hard against anti-semitism deliberately remain silent on people like that in their ranks?

They don't have to "obsess". But they should say something, right?

Jews and Israel are entirely separate groups. There's some overlap, but they're not the same.

In my experience, hardcore Israel defenders are more prone to trying to merge Israel and Jews than anyone else. Any criticism of Israel or anyone from Israel, no matter how mild suddenly becomes "Why do you want to see Israel destroyed?! WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS?!!!".

People might be more willing to read the linked article if it weren't formatted like Timecube and written by someone associated with the right wing Middle East Forum thinktank. You know, the guys that brought us IslamistWatch, who probably ought to be categorized as a hate group. They use the phrase "Islamists" the same way other bigots use the word "Zionists".

...like Gilad Atzmon who clearly links Jews to Zionists?

or at least I didn't until today, but he's just as much an idiot as the "ALL MOOSLIMS IS TERRISTS!" crowd. Bigots rarely make a whole lot of sense. Same reason you don't look to the Klan for rational policy discussion.

As for actual honest-to-goodness Zionists, I think they're much rarer than is frequently claimed. Although I'm also less inclined to think of them as a grand powerful organization and more along the lines of the equivalent of that guy that pastes so many American flags on his car that no one can tell what the original paint looked like. Every country and most groups have their right wingers. I hope like hell all of Europe doesn't think all Americans are the Get A Brain Morans guy.

It always takes years to kick a jerk out of an organization they've dug into. They've always built a well of supporters to draw from and it always causes a grand wailing and gnashing of teeth. It's never as simple as walking in and saying "Hey Gilad, see that rock? Try kicking it up that road, you asshat."

If it didn't cause massive splintering and infighting to kick him out, he probably didn't have as much support in the organization as everyone thought, or the people in the organization as a whole weren't particularly susceptible to arguments that amount to "Hey guys, I have an idea, let's hate the Jews. Like, ALL of them. I bet no one has ever tried that before!".

...that he does have a significant fan base with anti-Zionist leaders like Walt/Mearheimer, Richard Falk, Lauren Booth, and Israel Shamir.

The Guardian's profile of Atzmon states that it's "Atzmon’s blunt anti-Zionism rather than his music that has given him an international profile, particularly in the Arab world, where his essays are widely read.”

Turkish PM Erodgan quoted Atzmon when he verbally attacked Shimon Peres at Davos in 2009.

For sources, see links here...

The Antisemitism Lobby
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/505/the_antisemitism_lobby

Atzmon is a repeat bloviater for the online sewer, CounterPunch.

He was also recently involved in fundraising for the Global March To Jerusalem, which brought together anti-zios from the ISM, BDS, PSC, and FGM.
http://gm2j.co/2012/03/15/further-global-march-to-jerusalem-na-gilad-atzmon-fundraising-collaboration/

One more link: Here's the Bristol PSC's Gill Kafash (she's a big fan of Atzmon) proposing a debate (Jan 2012) as to whether the blood libel and Holocaust denial counts as racism....
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/01/holocaust-denial-and-anti-semitism-have.html

....Can you imagine what kind of coverage this would have received in the Guardian and elsewhere if it was a mob of Jews who had violently attacked a Christian (or Muslim) community in Jerusalem?

I guess the journalistic principle at play can be summed up (a bit irreverently) as “no Jews, no news”.

http://cifwatch.com/2012/09/23/christians-attacked-in-jerusalem-no-jews-were-involved-msm-ignores-story-you-do-the-math/

The answer is no, not always. Some do in fact, weave all three together.
but there are some who don't, perhaps to disguise their intentions, or out of a genuine respect for most Jews as a whole; I was of the latter faction.