Introduction by Chris Moore:
The following is more on the increasingly nasty and serious dustup on the left between crypto-Zionists and authentic left-wingers.
I originally followed the link to this article from Gilad Atzmon’s blog, where he made a brief comment. The article revolves around a review of Atzmon’s new book by Red Scribblings, one that “left-wing,” crypto-Zionist Tony Greenstein apparently found objectionable. The article also discusses Jewish anti-Zionist Israel Shamir, who himself submits a comment following the article, as does Greenstein.
While reading the article, keep in mind that there are two types of Jewish nationalism: Israeli Jewish nationalism, and Diaspora virtual Jewish nationalism. Both are equally racist, self-serving, and insidious; the only difference is that Jewish Zionist Israelis are more honest and open about their own chauvinistic character, whereas the Diaspora virtual Jewish nationalists often adopt affectations of liberalism or universal leftism as a smokescreen to cover over their chauvenism, and then, just as do Israeli Zionists, insist on smearing those who “out” their fascist essence as racists.
Greenstein is upset because, thanks to people like Shamir and Atzmon, more and more on the left are seeing “left-wing” Diaspora virtual Jewish nationalists for the self-serving frauds and saboteurs they are.
But the writing is on the wall: the crypto-Zionist, Diaspora virtual Jewish nationalists are finished on the left; they’re just having a really hard time coming to terms with the fact that their scam is up, yet again.
Redscribe, the author of the post in question, just responded to my comments and others' in a reply below the article (scroll down to the bottom of the following linked article to read it).
I responded to Redscribe's comments as follows (hopefully the reply will get out of modertation):
You have no knowledge of my ideology, which you conveniently dismiss as "conspiracy theory," thus no basis to impugn my motives.
The Levant Zionist issue can no longer be compartmentalized from the Diaspora Zionist and crypto-Zionist issue; insisting on doing so is a de facto endorsement of Diaspora Zionism, the primary lobby, underwriter and enabler of Levant Zionism.
There's an increasingly relevant slogan that Zionist-enablers, dupes and lackeys, left to right, can no longer ignore: “The Palestinians won’t gain their freedom from Zionism until the Americans do.”
I’ve added my own addendum: What’s the difference between an average Palestinian and an average American? About ten years.
We’re all Palestinians now, except those who place themselves in the Zionist camp volitionally, or by default, or whose own ideology is unwilling to acknowledge the continuity between Levant Zionism, Diaspora Zionism, and Diaspora virtual Jewish nationalism, and thus twists itself into hypocritical and intellectually incoherent double standards to get out of doing so.
From Atzmon to Dreyfus: a reply to communalists and Stalinists
(By Red Scribblings) --
Tony Greenstein’s extended comment criticising my review of Gilad Atzmon’s new book The Wandering Who is indicative of a political method that can only lead to a ‘dialogue of the deaf’. It is a characteristic flaw of the fragmented far left that in political disputes someone is quoted out of context in such a way as to distort the meaning of their views, and a whole extended narrative is concocted to attack the falsified or caricatured version. This is not a good method, it not only actually leaves one’s interlocutor’s real views untouched, but it also makes the exchange impossible to follow to the uninitiated layperson.
Such practices make the left a laughing stock. In this case, however, there is an additional element of communalism in that Atzmon is being ‘punished’ by left-wing members of his own Jewish community not merely for being right or wrong about something, but also for speaking ‘against’ his own people. The peculiar ferocity of the attack not only on Atzmon, but also on anyone who disagrees with these people’s most extreme characterisations, is shown by the contribution of another Jewish leftist, Evildoer, who baldly admits he does not seek a rational discussion at all with leftists who disagree with him about Atzmon.
Be that as it may, this odd method is shown by Greenstein’s own initial comment that Atzmon’s alleged anti-semitism is ‘largely ignored’ in my review. He must have been reading a completely different piece of writing, since the main subject of the review from beginning to end is the controversy about Atzmon’s alleged anti-semitism. But Tony Greenstein is not illiterate, this is rather communal-speak for ‘he does not think that Atzmon is a racist’. In other words, ‘largely ignored’ is a dishonest code for ‘I don’t agree with the way this has been addressed’. But instead of saying, as a normal discourse would, “ you have drawn this conclusion, but you are wrong – here is why…” and proceeding to give some reasons, he pretends that the question has been ignored and proceeds to give a long spiel on that basis. Which is simply like firing blanks.
Greenstein pretends that I did not address Atzmon’s putative holocaust denial, but of course I did and proceeded to the conclusion that while he undoubtedly has doubts about the truth of the holocaust or aspects of it, he has not taken a definitive position. I also gave reasons, taken from the Israeli context, why someone reacting against the racist crimes of their own state, not decades before their birth but right in front of their eyes, might mistakenly but comprehensibly develop such doubts or even disbelief when a narrative about historical crimes is used to justify racist crimes in the here and now.
Greenstein rattles off a list of Jews who have made this very error and pretends that I did not address this question (when actually I called it a ‘monumental blunder’). Again what he really objects to is the conclusions I drew about those who have made this kind of error. That they are generally misguided opponents of Israel racism. This is not the same as not addressing it.
And on one point of detail, outside the subject of my review, Greenstein accuses the Russian/Swedish/Israeli Jewish journalist Israel Shamir of being a fully paid-up fascist. In fact his views are an odious form of Stalinism; he certainly does favour alliances with racists and nationalists, with the Machiavellian and grossly unprincipled aim of manipulating the supporters of one form of far right politics to supposedly neutralise another form – the Western-backed free-market form. This is the Red-Brown block that many Stalinist nostalgics are involved in in Russia at the moment.
This is a reactionary fantasy; the most degenerate form of popular frontism, quite in tune with previous examples of such alliances with one reactionary force against a ‘greater evil’ in the history of Stalinism like Stalin’s ‘rehabilitation’ of the anti-semitic Russian Orthodox Church during the ‘Great Patriotic War’ against Hitler. For ‘Hitler’ Shamir, embracing both Stalin and the church, substitutes the Zionists and West. Stalin’s rehabilitation of the church led to such events as the post-war anti-semitic ‘Doctors Plot’ and anti-Jewish purges in Eastern Europe, so it is hardly surprising that someone who embraces a similar idea today would end up sounding pretty rancid.
On the other hand, he might well strike a chord with some Jews repelled by Israel’s repeated massacres of Palestinians, justified repeatedly by reference to the need for Israeli ‘security’ against the threat of another holocaust. Shamir is just one of many voices in the Middle East region who speak out against Israeli crimes using a discourse tinged with hostility to Jews – amalgamating Zionism, being Jewish and Judaism as a religion. The only thing that makes him a bit different is that he is himself Jewish.
Shamir is undoubtedly a deeply alienated character who, however has a common origin with other Jewish/Israeli ‘self-haters’ and some authority because of his long-standing support for the Palestinians. Objectionable many of his views may be, but as a Stalinist, he still has one foot in the workers movement and his influence over some dissident Jewish circles arguably derives from that. He, and those influenced by him, still have to be dealt with by means of debate according to the norms of the labour movement.
Greenstein produces no evidence for his claim that Atzmon’s view of Jews is ‘an essentialist view based on a racist outlook’. None whatsoever – all he can do is misquote Atzmon in a particularly silly way. On his own blog, Greenstein’s co-thinker Brian Robinson admitted misquoting Atzmon in this way, his clear statements that he did not consider Jews to be an ethnic group or ‘race’ at all being twisted to say the exact opposite. In Robinson’s case, he at least acknowledged that he had made a mistake, but Greenstein would hear nothing of it, saying “I have no doubt he [sees Jews as a race – RS] – however he defines it”. No evidence of this, but much to the contrary...MORE...LINK
Has Greenstein ever attempted to debate 'Holocaust' revisionists? Or is he in the "there's nothing to debate"camp? Either way.....ignore this mouthpiece, it looks like everybody else does....
Post a Comment