tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post4559827109852602031..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: CiFWatching, Andy Newmanism, Gilad Atzmon and the socialism of foolsbobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-57685570681467764762011-10-24T17:26:11.642+01:002011-10-24T17:26:11.642+01:00Hi Bob,
We just published a reply, by Hadar Sela,...Hi Bob,<br /><br />We just published a reply, by Hadar Sela, at CW, to your recent blog posts. <br /><br />We'd appreciate any comment you may have beneath the line.<br /><br />http://cifwatch.com/2011/10/24/jews-israel-the-atavistic-british-left-a-response-to-bob-from-brockley/<br /><br />Thanks for this continuing thoughtful exchange of views.<br /><br />AdamAdam Levickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16104050660732894576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-49551713896316207922011-10-23T19:55:25.351+01:002011-10-23T19:55:25.351+01:00Thanks Adam for the kind words. Re your points.
1...Thanks Adam for the kind words. Re your points.<br /><br />1. Yes, that was a harsh and unnecessarily personal thing to say. The same friend, by the way, called Roberta Moore the Deborah Fink of the right. I agree JH is bravely fighting extreme manifestations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but he is also fighting for a version of Zionism I don't find too congenial, and he is all too often his own worst enemy for his over-exaggerations. I apologise though.<br /><br />2. Clearly I exaggerated, but it seems to me all too often that there is a segue to thoughts like "Welcome to Vienna ca 1938" in the comment threads, and to me this just seems paranoid and hysterical. <br /><br />There is an issue about the relationship between the above-the-line posts on a blog and the general tone below the line in the thread. This is an issue with SU, where Jon Wight is published above the line alongside clear denunciations of Atzmon etc, but the comment thread mood is quite congenial to antisemitism. It is an issue with HP, where a strong line against anti-Muslim racism and the EDL is held above the line, but below the line is a toxic swamp of Islamophobia. At CW, there seems to be a closer relationship between posters and commenters, but there is a lot more paranoia and hysteria below the line. There is also support below the line for counterjihadi sites that are linked to the EDL, and there are a fair few EDL types one some threads, despite at least one very clear denunciation of the EDL. Regular readers will know that I am can't take any moral high ground on this, but it's something to think about.<br /><br />3. Thanks for updating the post. I agree that CW's job is watching the Guardian and not the Times, and I am glad that watching is being done. I know life is too short and full to do this sort of thing, but I think it would have been right to acknowledge quicker that the Guardian was, in this particular instance, not unique in peddling this nonsense on their supposedly bespoke on-line stores. An earlier version of my post stoppped at “The Guardian: Your one-stop, hassle-free, 24/7 purveyor of antisemitism.” I realised, after reading Keith and then HP that this was unfair, and so I amended before publishing. This was not complicity with antisemitism, but just how a mechanised book retail industry works. Even if, as you are right to insist, the Guardian does play a role in disseminating antisemitism.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-9857264924471025512011-10-23T15:43:50.589+01:002011-10-23T15:43:50.589+01:00Hi Bob,
Thoughtful essay, as usual. And, while w...Hi Bob,<br /><br />Thoughtful essay, as usual. And, while we will likely reply to your arguments (here, and in a previous post) more fully at CW, I just wanted to note a couple things:<br /><br />1. You say: " Jonathan Hoffman (who my friend described as the Tony Greenstein of the right)..." This is just ad hominem and incredibly unfair to Hoffman, who (along with a very few other brave souls) is fighting extreme manifestations of anti-Zionism and antisemitism in a UK where Judeophobic narratives are no longer controversial. <br /><br />2. You write, "saying the Guardian might not be completely at fault for distributing Atzmon is not the first step in a journey that leads towards Auschwitz." Respectfully, this is a classic straw man, Bob. Nobody at CiF Watch has suggested anything resembling such a characterization. You're taking a few stray CW reader comments and impugning our blog with their admittedly hysterical narrative. <br /><br />3. You write: "Then, in a further twist, it turns out that the Times (of London) on-line bookshop also stocks the offending book, which has yet to provoke the chorus at CiFWatch, as it doesn't fit so neatly into their paranoid worldview."<br /><br />In fairness, you were right that we should have noted this, and I just updated our post to acknowledge that the Times is still selling the book. <br /><br />However, as you know, we monitor the Guardian, not the Times, and I don't think we have to compare and contrast what other UK media groups are doing everytime we expose antisemitism at the Guardian. <br /><br />Further, I'm not quite sure what you even mean when you accuse us of advancing a paranoid or conspiratorial worldview. <br /><br />Our posts about anti-Zionism and antisemitism at the Guardian speak for themselves. And, I don't know how anyone who understands antisemitism, and is familiar with the Guardian, could possibly deny that the Guardian group is in a league of its own when it comes to sanctioning voices opposed to my nation's mere existence, and legitimizing classic antisemitic narratives. Do you really think this is even debatable?<br /><br />Again, thanks for your always thoughtful and intelligent blog.<br /><br />AdamAdam Levickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16104050660732894576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-89693553617693073722011-10-21T14:18:23.061+01:002011-10-21T14:18:23.061+01:00I posted before Modernity's first comment was ...I posted before Modernity's first comment was up - it's true that Newman's article could have been tougher and more searching, and it's also true that some who post and comment on SU might actually have formed part of his analysis. I suppose I want to give Andy Newman credit for making some effort. This is partly because I thought he must have been pretty horrified by the comments on SU (and the Guardian). I expected SU commenters to say things more along the lines of 'well, ok, Atzmon is a racist, but too many antizionists are wrongly accused of antisemitism as a way of deflecting criticism of Israel'. But it was much worse, with people attacking Andy N's motives and his timing in the weirdest way. <br /><br />BUT - Andy Newman did not seem to wish to attend to a problem WRT antisemitism on this thread. It was inadequate, I thought, to brush aside my reference to Qaradawi's antisemitism just because it involved a MEMO translation.<br /><br />http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=8372<br /><br />But compared with John Wight most people seem quite nice.Sarah ABhttp://hurryupharry.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-64481480991004451812011-10-21T11:19:38.331+01:002011-10-21T11:19:38.331+01:00Bob,
Good questions, only Andy Newman will truly ...Bob,<br /><br />Good questions, only Andy Newman will truly know his own views on Atzmon and the SWP but I doubt we will hear a objective rendering. from him.<br /><br />Atzmon was pushed by the SWP for years, it seems unlikely that 1) Newman wasn't a member during at least part of that period) 2) having left the SWP, seemingly rather bitter, that he didn't bring it up (Newman has criticised the SWP in nearly every other area (I am a regular SU blog reader))<br /><br />However, more importantly is the continued presence of anti-Jewish racism on SU blog and John Wright's role.modernitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-70003482110750932282011-10-21T10:57:25.705+01:002011-10-21T10:57:25.705+01:00Thanks Mod and Sarah. I agree with most of what yo...Thanks Mod and Sarah. I agree with most of what you both say.<br /><br /><i>4. Newman's prior knowledge of Atzmon is not reflected in any of his contemporary posts on antisemitism.</i><br />I'm not sure when the first one was, but this is not the first Atzmon post at SU. I know they've published Greenstein condemning Rizzo before. True that in 2006 they were still uncritical, during the Respect romance, but there is Greenstein stuff going back at least a couple of years.<br /><br /><i>5. Newman whilst scathing of the SWP in all other areas, as far as I can remember, hasn't given a particularly illuminating account of why the SWP supported Atzmon for years, including when he was a leading member.</i><br /><br />True he has not given an account or explanation. I don't know, tho, when he left the SWP. Was he still a leading member when they were courting Atzmon?<br /><br /><i>I'm pretty sure Andy Newman has said he was asked to write the article, and I assume it was because of his Socialist credentials. But I don't see anything wrong with that - I think Hadar Sela thought such a piece would come better from the CST or similar, but seeing as the problem being discussed was 'left wing' antisemitism, there was something to be said for asking Andy Newman to write the piece, as someone whose blog is very critical of Israel.</i><br /><br />If he was asked, then I have to partially withdraw my criticism of Sela. But, yes, surely more effective for someone with socialist credentials to denounce socialist antisemitism than someone who denounces socialism anyway. Possibly this is as-a-socialist-ism, as one CiFWatch commenter says, but I don't think as-a-socialist-ism is the same as as-a-Jew-ism, because socialism is not just an identity but a set of beliefs that you sign up to.<br /><br />6. Newman's case would be much stronger if his own blog, Socialist Unity, wasn't filled with anti-Jewish racism whenever there is a provocative post on Israel.<br /><br />7. Finally, Newman cannot bring himself to admit that John Wright has demonstrated some serious problems with anti-Jewish racism, yet is still a valued, almost treasured, poster at SU blog.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-5326395554444311542011-10-21T08:29:30.476+01:002011-10-21T08:29:30.476+01:00I found this very interesting - and congenial. Ha...I found this very interesting - and congenial. Hadar Sela's pieces are often thoughtful, but I agree that her reaction seems rather exaggerated here. Also, sadly, she seems to be wrong when she identifies Atzmon as someone too egregiously antisemitic to be worth bothering with. (see comments under Andy Newman's piece for evidence.) <br /><br />I'm all in favour of anti-zionists distancing themselves from extreme antisemites and having that distnace acknowledged by others - that doesn't stop others, of course, continuing to point out that they may themselves be more subtly or indirectly antisemitic - or may not be. <br /><br />I'm pretty sure Andy Newman has said he was asked to write the article, and I assume it was because of his Socialist credentials. But I don't see anything wrong with that - I think Hadar Sela thought such a piece would come better from the CST or similar, but seeing as the problem being discussed was 'left wing' antisemitism, there was something to be said for asking Andy Newman to write the piece, as someone whose blog is very critical of Israel. <br /><br />There's something very galling about being accused of being like someone whose views are a distorted and exaggerated version of one's own - but not the complete opposite. So I sympathise with Newman, WRT the Combat 18 point, as it reminds me of the sneers HP receives when it condemns antimuslim bigotry. <br /><br />I agree about the various over reactions you go on to describe - I pointed out on HP that you can buy The Turner Diaries on the Times site.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01704141087306696250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-17727798440853033372011-10-20T23:47:32.638+01:002011-10-20T23:47:32.638+01:00I just read that article by Andy Newman, it was qu...I just read that article by Andy Newman, it was quite good and I loath to agree with CiFwatch.<br /><br />However, Newman's article at the Guardian doesn't exist within a vacuum, were it to do so that would be a very different situation. There are seven points which occurred to me at the moment:<br /><br />1. The inability to acknowledge that parts of the Left are often purblind to anti-Jewish racism.<br /><br />2. That parts of the Left have, for a variety of reasons, either supported, pushed or associated with people who clearly have antisemitic views. These are not one offs.<br /><br />3. That there is never a good answer as to why it happens. There's no materialist analysis, no dialectics, the question, *why*, never gets asked and certainly never gets answered.<br /><br />4. Newman's prior knowledge of Atzmon is not reflected in any of his contemporary posts on antisemitism.<br /><br />See http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2006/05/marxism-2006-festival-of-resistance.html<br /><br />5. Newman whilst scathing of the SWP in all other areas, as far as I can remember, hasn't given a particularly illuminating account of why the SWP supported Atzmon for years, including when he was a leading member.<br /><br />6. Newman's case would be much stronger if his own blog, Socialist Unity, wasn't filled with anti-Jewish racism whenever there is a provocative post on Israel.<br /><br />7. Finally, Newman cannot bring himself to admit that John Wright has demonstrated some serious problems with anti-Jewish racism, yet is still a valued, almost treasured, poster at SU blog.<br /><br />Again, the critical question which Newman can't answer is, <b>why do parts of the Left find themselves, from time to time, in close association with obvious antisemites, of which Gilad Atzmon, is but one example.</b> WHY?modernitynoreply@blogger.com