On 21st February 2008 Gilad Atzmon wrote to imc-uk-moderation to ask that all his article be removed from UK Indymedia and this has been done.

On 24th February 2008 Birmingham Indymedia published a feature article on the matter, Indymedia UK and the Atzmon-Greenstein affair after there was no agreement to publish this on the UK front page, the draft of this article is here: ImcUkFeatureAtzmon.

Some people are claiming that Tony Greenstein is banned from Indymedia UK — this is not true, he has simply been banned from the imc-uk-features email list because of repeated abuse, his emails are being blocked by the list and are being manually pasted onto this wiki page so that people who do want to read them can — he is not banned from posting articles or comments to the site where, of course, the usual editorial guidelines apply.

Table of content :


A background to the discussion can be placed here (please add).

The controversy started with a posting on the imc uk newswire titled „Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath“ on August 14th, 2007. On August 13th, the same article was posted on a number of weblogs and webmagazines, including: peacepalestine, and palestinianpundit, informationclearinghouse. The article also appeared on Gilad Atzmon's website. In the following weeks, it was reposted many times.

  • An argument for the banning of Gilad Atzmon can be found here;
  • an argument against the banning of Gilad Atzmon can be found here.
  • A view from a pro-Palestinian website on Tony Greenstein's campaign can be found here;
  • Atzmon being "happy" that he circulated Holocaust denial propaganda is documented here.

See also the IMC UK Moderation discussion page

There is also a page with more information about IMC UK Moderation

A simple question from David Gehrig

Gilad Atzmon has said he's "happy" he circulated Paul Eisen's Holocaust denial propaganda. Is it the stance of IMC-UK that

  • Eisen's essay wasn't really Holocaust denial propaganda, despite its open embrace of the very same lies David Irving lost his case over; or
  • Eisen's essay was Holocaust denial propaganda, and Atzmon gladly spread it, but it's somehow okay and a progressive thing for Atzmon to help the Holocaust denial movement despite its neo-Nazi origin and essentially antisemitic nature; or
  • It actually doesn't matter whether Gilad Atzmon spreads Holocaust denial propaganda or not, or is an antisemite or not, as long as someone can change the subject to how much he hates Tony Greenstein every time the issue comes up, and hide posts like this without alerting the imc-uk-features list.

Or is it the stance of IMC-UK that

  • This issue is larger than ftp versus Tony Greenstein versus Gilad Atzmon versus me, and comes down to this: does IMC-UK mean it when it says it is an anti-racist organization, or is an institutional exception to be made for antisemitism if it appears in certain officially approved pseudo-lefty guises, such as Atzmon's crusade against what he calls "Jewishness."

Unsolicited emails to ftp from Tony Greenstein

   from           tony greenstein           
   date      Jan 25, 2008 11:39 PM    
   subject      Re: Gilad Atzmon - a Holocaust Denier    

'twould seem that Peeps is getting himself hot under the collar.
Now why, did Peeps, or should I say Roy Bard, hide the article on Atzmon?  Well that's because he didn't like anything criticising his latest hero Atzmon.  And being a good censor, despite professing his opposition to censorship, he therefore made up the usual excuses one gets when a censor is at work.  But let's take the Peeps at face value:
i.  Non-news - in that case all Atzmon's egotistical stuff is non-news.  It certainly says nothing about the situation of the Palestinians.
ii.  Repeated content - on the contrary, for Indymedia extremely new and in fact much is new in any case.  But what is new about Atzmon's postings apart from rearranging existing words and in most cases not even that?
iii.  No Atzmon won't come out and say that he's a holocaust denier but he no longer denies it anyway, as the article makes clear.  What is not in doubt is that he's a virulent anti-Semite, by his own admission in this case.  Peeps however is his little runner boy.
iv.  Character assassination isn't just a characteristic of Zionists but of bourgeois society generally.  I think you mean Jewish peeps ol mate.
I am not interested in you siding with anyone but trying to use your brain cells.  However that would seem an impossible task.
Whatever I've achieved it's infinitely more than you have either achieved or indeed done.  Apart from playing hide and seek with the cops on a Saturday afternoon.
Don't know what a 'crypro' Zionist is.  I assume you meant 'crypto' but there's no such thing.  You either are or you aren't.  And if anyone is a Zionist it's you dear Peeps.  After all, a good anti-Semite must also be a Zionist - but I'll let you figure out why for yourself.
I see your talent for the witty one liner hasn't deserted you peeps.  
Tony G wrote:
Now lets see - why did I hide an article called "Gilad Atzmon - now an open
holocaust denier"? Besides the fact that it was a) non news b) repeated content
and c) by your own admission inaccurate (Atzmon won't openly
come out of course and say he's a holocaust denier, not yet anyway), I've made
it perfectly clear that I don't think Indymedia should side with you in your
obsessional zionist stylee character assassination of him. It was your
endeavours that made me decide that if you were going to force me to side with
anyone, it was Atzmon I would be siding with. Because you have exactly zero to
offer anyone - after 20 odd years of your anti-zionist camapigning, what have
you actually achieved?

Atzmon understands that it is the oppressed who are the priority - you still
think its all about the oppressor. Because you are at one with the oppressor.
Thats why you are a crypro-zionist as well as being a liar, a smearer and a

Until you start looking at why this is repeatedly said to you by people of all
political persuasions, you will continue to be all those things.

Don't send me your obsessional lies means don't email me......

Now go fuck yourself


Quoting tony greenstein :

> Now my dear Peeps, I don't take my cues from Gehrig. Atzmon won't openly
> come out of course and say he's a holocaust denier, not yet anyway, but it is
> clear that that is what he is about. How you reconcile it with your own, I
> assume anarchist politics, is a matter for you.
> The Palestinians have other things to worry about right now than holocaust
> deniers. I doubt if most of them care, and quite understandably given the
> situation in Gaza and the West Bank. And for the Zionists holocaust denial
> is a free gift, because it merely confirms what they say about supporters of
> the Palestinians. Which is why Atzmon has a number of good Zionist friends
> like Mikey of Harry's Place.
> I thought it only right that since I'd sent the post to many other people
> that I should send you a copy. I try not to do things behind peoples'
> backs.
> Despite you, Rizzo et al complaining about 'censorship' you were quick off
> the mark to 'hide' the article. Can't imagine why!! Afraid of other people
> making their own minds up about it?
> TG
> wrote:
> Listen Greenie
> Even gehrig says you're wrong on this...... think about that for a minute.
> "Is Atzmon an open Holocaust denier, as Tony Greenstein claims? Not quite;
> he's
> got too much to lose to go around saying openly what Eisen does. But Atzmon
> clearly has no serious problem with circulating pro-denial essays or
> praising
> Holocaust deniers, as shown by his decision to distribute Eisen's essay, a
> decision he's "happy" about."
> Now - he's fighting for Israel and you claim to be fighting for Palestine by
> going even further than him. I'm sure the (as you call them) 'politically
> backward' Palestinians are not even remotely grateful to you for for your
> disgusting behaviour.
> The fact that Truthseeker includes a comment from Redress in an Atzmon
> article
> suggests that they lifted it from Redress, rather than that Atzmon posted
> it.
> In your own words:
> ".... just as I can do nothing when far-right sites purloin what I right for
> their own nefarious purposes."
> Don't send me your obsessive lies.
> ftp
> Quoting tony greenstein :
> > I enclose an article on Gilad Atzmon coming out as a holocaust denier on
> the
> > Socialist Unity site (or socialist Jewnity as Atzmon refers to it). 
> > Interestingly in the Comments section he doesn't even bother to deny the
> > charge, but he does tell us that ' With Levy and Abrahams making the
> > headline, the Protocols are MAINSTREEM NEWS.. rather than a remote Tsarist
> > forgery…'
> > 
> > I wonder how long it is before even the SWP becomes embarrassed at this
> > type of stuff.
> >
> > 
> > But Indymedia, which sees itself as a radical anarchist site, has a few
> > defenders of the holocaust deniers in particular a moderator who goes by
> the
> > name 'free the peeps' has hidden it on the grounds it has links to the
> very
> > far right sites that Atzmon posts to!!
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Tony Greenstein
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Atzmon's only comment
> > Andy and the rest of you, 
> > If you care about Pls, make sure you write about Gaza in the dark!!!
> > But if you prefer a J war, i will serve you with one….
> > Palestinian solidarity movement is not divided!!!
> > In fact it is more united than ever. As you surely know, the resistance to
> > Greenstein/Rance/Blackwell last AGM was overwhelming (95%). 
> > As you probably know, Rance, Elf and Blackwell were clever enough to take
> > it in.. They are pretty quiet. Greenstein wasn’t clever enough… and I have
> > good reason to believe that he will manage to drag you (Andy) down with
> him.
> > It is obviously your choice. Just prepare yourself. 
> > In case you didn’t get it yet. People out there start to see what is going
> > on. 
> > Here in Britain they see Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy, Proxy Tycoon Abrahams
> > and now Peter Hain supported by prominent Zios,,,, it is all out in the
> > open…
> > In America we have the Neocons…Wolfy and his mates…
> > For a few years, Jewish lobbies tried to silence the discourse that
> exposes
> > this exact interference in Anglo American politics. Indeed, I was one of
> the
> > very few who stood up. already in 2003 I wrote ,’ who cares whether the
> > Protocols were genuine or not’. With Levy and Wolfy , we have information
> > about elder Zios flooding in. 
> > With Levy and Abrahams making the headline, the Protocols are MAINSTREEM
> > NEWS.. rather than a remote Tsarist forgery…
> > Clearly some people want to silence the discourse. We call them Zionist
> > Interestingly enough, Greenstein and you Andy do not want us to talk about
> > it either. This is enough to make you into rabid Zionists. 
> > I may suggest to you Andy that those who fight us are a very sporadic
> > voices operating within some marginal so called ‘Jewish Left’. As you
> > probably know, we have more than a few Jews who fight for Palestine as
> > ordinary human being. Michael Rosen admitted here last week that he saw a
> > poing in doing just that (avoiding the J banner). We admire those people.
> But
> > we indeed have a serious problem with Jewish gatekeepers. 
> > We believe that if Israel is entitled to define itself as the Jewish
> State,
> > we are rather entitled to ask what the words: Jew, Jewish, Judaism, and
> > Jewishness stand for. I believe as well that Jews around the world would
> > benefit from such an approach. 
> > If Palestinian people would have to fight Israelis alone, we would have
> > peace by now. But this is not the case. Palestinians fight global Zionism,
> a
> > very powerful lobby that took Britain and USA into an illegal war in Iraq.
> > Israel openly pusshing for war against Iran. I am very sorry to tell you
> that
> > you Andy serve this Lobby by trying to silence the discourse. 
> > Luckily enough you are marginal on the verge of unnoticeable.
> > We will move on and we will win (Just because we have nothing to lose)
> > All the best
> > Gilad
> > Comment by Gilad Atzmon — 21 January, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

Discussion about the moderation of posts complaining

Started continues

Subject: Objection to hiding
From: "Richard Jones" 
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:38:11 +0000

I see that the post "No platform for racists (388702)" was today hidden by freethepeeps. 
As it is the same freethepeeps who has caused all the problems for IMC with this refusal to hide the racist posts of Gilad Atzmon it's a bit bloody off for him to hide a post about it.
We all know that some of the admins have already walked away from IMC over this stuff and it should be wrong for freethepeeps to try and shut down discussion of this.
I have watched this entire event descend into farce already because of the way it has been handled and IMC needs a real rethink of how racists need to be dealt with when they post to the newsline. 
I know the admins here work hard in a job that gets little thanks but this one admin has really let down the larger collective and needs to be dealt with and made to realise that he or she is not above the rules.  It needs the other admins to stand up to the bullying of freethepeeps and hide racist posts from Gilad Atzmon and others when they are here. 
There should be no platform for racists on IMC and covering anti Jewish posts by peppering them with a few references to Zionism will not wash.  freethepeeps hoping to avoid having to admit his or her mistake or prejudices by keeping on talking and emailing for months in the hope that others will get bored with the whole debate is a shabby trick and doesn't fool anybody.

Discussion with David Gehrig

From: "David Gehrig" <>
Subject: Three Questions for the UK Collective

This is an open letter to the UK Collective. I've also posted it to
uk-imc-features and to It is likely that the discussion
on the UK Indymedia website will be cut short, since many posts on the
topic have been hidden recently. The discussion at UC-IMC will not be

I've kept out of the Atzmon discussion on imc-uk-features, but
something happened last night which is so disturbing, I wanted to
bring it to the attention of the editorial list and see your reaction.

Ftp has started aping the arguments of Holocaust deniers.

In particular, he is arguing that there's nothing morally wrong with
calling the gas chambers of Auschwitz "discredited."

He defends this position by quoting the Holocaust denier Greg Nimmo,
the guy who called the gas chambers "discredited."

Nimmo quote in turns gives us a short litany of long-established
Holocaust denier arguments. Nimmo claims that Dr. Piper, former
director of the Auschwitz State Museum, has said there were no gas
chambers. This is a flat out lie (see, last

Nimmo then plays the Auschwitz plaque gambit, a denier dodge that was
debunked even *before* David Irving took it up (see #43 at

These sorts of claims are the bread and butter of the Holocaust denial
movement. These are their core opening gambits. They were refuted long
before David Irving even took them up. But ftp sees nothing wrong with
accepting it all at face value and letting the Holocaust denier Greg
Nimmo exonerate himself.

Note specifically that I am not calling ftp an antisemite. I am simply
calling attention to a baffling inability to see antisemitism in even
forms as raw as Nimmo's Holocaust denial, counterpoised with his
seemingly endless ability to explain such examples of antisemitism

Question one.

Does freethepeeps actually believe that there were no gas chambers at
Auschwitz, or that this is in any way a factually defensible position,
rather than Nazi wank?

Question two.

Is it really UK Indymedia policy that it's okay to call the gas
chambers of Auschwitz "discredited"? Ftp thinks so. Is he right? Is UK
Indymedia now fair game for Holocaust denial?

Question three.

Ultimately, the deeper question is this -- why is UK Indymedia
allowing the perimeters and parameters of discussion about
antisemitism to be laid down by a guy who can't even see the
antisemitism in "The gas chambers of Auschwitz are discredited"?
People are leaving your collective in disgust for this reason.
Anti-racist readers are reacting with disgust for this reason.

What do you plan to do?

David Gehrig @%<

An intitial response to gehrig
Sunday 9th December, 2007.
Posted at:


You have trolled IMC UK all month. You haven't given any "straight non-dissembling answers" and now you're protraying yourself as some of authority figure, for whom everyone must drop everything when he demands. You want me to ignore your trolling, and smearing and lies, and your disrespect for the decision making process of the United Kollektives and its editorial guidelines, and to drop everything to answer to you.

Well, I think you're going to have to wait until you've done some explaining of your own.

You've been attacking Indymedia UK for a while now:

About a year ago, on IndyMedia Watch, where you were posting as someone who was more like an opponent of Indymedia, than an IMCista, you had this to say about Indymedia UK in the course of one thread:

""it's the sort of blasphemy that one is not allowed to utter on UK Indymedia"

"See, this is where the UK Indymedia blindness kicks in."

" In UK Indymedia, antisemitic rhetoric is presumed true as long as it comes in the right guises."

"After all, just because it's the ravings of an antisemite, well, still, the burden of disproving it should be on the Jews, right? Just like Petras' article. 

At least that's how UK Indymedia apparently sees it."

" And one of the consequences of UK Indymedia's defense of antisemitism is that it has completely destroyed its moral ground when it comes to the issue of antisemitism."

All that happened because Indymedia UK took 6 days to reach a decision, before it took down an article. So, it is obvious that you've had issues with IMC UK for some time.

This is something that people need to bear in mind when looking at your attempt to suddenly present yourself as some kind of International Tribunal on Anti-Semitism - that you are hostile to the kollektive that you now think you have a right to demand things of.

On November 30th, in comment 185318, you wrote:
"As long as this now-notorious post -- -- remains unhidden, it's simply not possible to say that UK Indymedia does not have at least some form of a "Jewish problem."

I then invited you to "Remind us where the anti-semitism in the article that you complain of is, please? After all you're asserting that it breaches a guideline."

in the exchange that followed, you failed to point to the anti-semitism in the article that you declared left Indymedia UK with a "Jewish problem"

Having ignored the question, put several times, on December 1st in comment number 185401, you said:

" It's not like UK Indymedia has a Jewish Problem, does it? 

Oh, yeah, that's right, it does: 

But let's be clear. It was freethepeeps who threw in a BLOCK to prevent other IMC collective members, many of them calling for the removal of Atzmon's antisemitic post. So I don't blame the whole UK Kollektive, because they were in effect held hostage by ftp's crusade to keep UK IMC safe for antisemites like Atzmon. "

And yet, you have still to date not backed up your claim that Indymedia UK has a Jewish problem because of this article.

IF there is clear anti-semitism ie a hatred of Jews displayed in that post, then it seems to me that you, as a self appointed expert on anti-semitsm in Indymedia can help out here by pointing to it. Furthermore, you also went through our lists, and helped to show that no-one, other than Greenstein and his crew had managed to point to the alleged anti-semitism in the article.

So, I'm inviting you to do so now. So, we can sort it out for once and all, and that you can demonstrate that you have good cause for using Indymedia UK's newswire to declare that Indymedia UK has "some sort of a Jewish problem".

I am also going to point you to the Editorial guidelines for Indymedia UK again, ( and I would like you to acknowledge that you have read them, understand them, and will abide by them.

Once we've got these 2 things cleared up, I will be in a position to judge whether I have any duty to start talking about my personal beliefs when you demand that I do so.

Let me remind you that I am capable of being extremely stubborn - and I have no intention in backing down from this. I want you to back up your own claims about Indymedia having a "Jewish problem" as long as that article stays up , because it will help move the issue about that article on. I also want you to agree that you will respect the editorial guidelines, and not continue to use our newswire as a soapbox to attack individuals and the Kollektive.

If you do neither of these things,then no way am I answering any question from you.

And in your own words, I require a "straightforward, non-dissembling answer " 

Thank you again for the reply.

For inclusion on the Wiki, my response to ftp.

Posted with links at

No, I have not "trolled" UK-IMC all month. I have pointed out that
you're hosting the writings of a known antisemite, Gilad Atzmon. I
have done this on the assumption that UK-IMC hides racist posts -- am
I mistaken on that? `I have pointed out that it's not just me who has
trouble with the antisemitism of Atzmon's writings, but your own
Kollective. I have pointed to the post on imc-uk-features in which
five Kollective members are lined up not just to hide one antisemitic
post but to ban Gilad Atzmon permanently on the principle of "No
Platform for Racists."

Yet you continue to try to shape the narrative that this is just one
or two Enemies of UK Indymedia "trolling" and harrassing the site.

Anyone who follows this link will see that's simply not true.

That's five members of your own collective calling for the banning of
the antisemite Atzmon, whom you endlessly defend.

Do you believe that the five members of your collective who want to
ban Atzmon outright are secret Mossad operatives trying to stifle
criticism of Israel? Do you believe that after five years' involvement
with the IMC I suddenly decided to start "trolling" UK-IMC just for
the hell of it?

What you have decided is a "campaign against Atzmon" is actually a
campaign against antisemitism on the left -- a campaign that includes
members of your own collective -- and you're inexplicably doing your
level best to fight against that campaign.

Why haven't I gone into detail about why Atzmon's antisemitic rhetoric
is antisemitic? Because, peeps, you've given every indication that
such an effort would be a complete waste of my time, and that you'd
simply wave it away as more "trolling," just as you have done again
and again with my other arguments. Why should I bother to tie it up
with a pretty bow when you've made clear your intention to chuck the
package out the window the moment you see it?

This is why I have responded, again and again, by telling you to ask
the members of your own collective. Them I think you might actually
have to listen to.

And then, just a couple of days ago, you did something really
spectacularly indefensible -- you started echoing the argument of a
Holocaust denier in order to exonerate that same Holocaust denier. And
then you argued that there's really nothing indefensible about calling
the gas chambers of Auschwitz "discredited."

Congratulations! You are now defending Holocaust deniers on their own
terms, using their own lies. How does that feel, peeps?

Apparently you believe the UK stance is "No Platform For Racists,
unless they're Holocaust deniers in which case, well, let's see both
sides of the story, because it's not like there's anything inherently
antisemitic in the Holocaust denial movement, is there?"

Does UK Indymedia have a Jewish problem? Yes, it does. I've repeatedly
spelled out what that problem is -- but you've of course failed to cut
and paste that one. The UK Indymedia collective runs by unanimous
consent. That means that one person's blindness and moral failure on
the antisemitism issue can taint the entire collective, because one
person can in effect force the rest of the collective to appear to
tolerate antisemitic articles it otherwise wouldn't. That, and that
alone, as I have repeatedly said, is UK Indymedia's Jewish problem.

Take the Lendman article about "the Jewish Lobby" from a year ago. If
I'm remembering right, that was hid on sight for its obvious
antisemitism. Then someone -- you? certainly someone who can't see
obvious antisemitism -- instantly unhid it. There it festered on the
newswire, not for six days as you claim but nine, and only because
someone -- you? certainly someone who can't see obvious antisemitism
-- had gone to the trouble of unhiding it.

If it were routinely the case that racist posts took nine days to hide
on UK Indymedia, then you might have a point. But most racist posts
get hidden right away, don't get instantly unhidden, and then don't
take another week of hemming and hawing and to-ing and fro-ing and
banter and essay before they finally go away.

Yes, as that example shows, antisemitism is treated differently on UK
Indymedia than other forms of racism. In case you're wondering, that's
not a good thing. And I am not the only one who's noticed it. Here,
for example, is yossarian in April, voicing his frustration at how
hiding antisemitic posts on UK Indymedia requires so much more effort
than it should:

"I am always happy enough to justify hides, but am increasingly pissed
off that I need to spend another hour of my time justifying what is in
my view, a simple hide-the-racist-crap decision. I am spending all
kinds of time trying to get the technical angle worked out for us (we
have a hell of a lot of work to do on that end of things) so I am not
doing as much editorial work as I was in the past. It's irritating to
me that whenever I do try do get involved in newswire admin over the
last few months, I have to write a book defending what in the past
would have been very simple decisions, and it makes me wonder why I've
spent so much time coding things."

Just recently, though, we learn that one of the guys providing
institutional resistance against hiding antisemitic posts thinks
calling the gas chambers of Auschwitz "discredited" isn't goosestepper
bullshit but a historical claim that should be considered on its own
terms using the Holocaust denier's very same arguments.

That's very, very problematic.

So I'm not surprised that you'd rather try to sell the narrative that
the problem is just that there's some disrespectful troll running
loose, nothing to see here, move along.

And you want to talk about stubborn? You haven't seen stubborn. I've
spent too much time and effort on the IMC over the last half decade to
watch it become "No Platform For Racists Unless They're Antisemites In
Which Case Let's Bandy Words For Months."

Now: Does freethepeeps actually believe that there were no gas
chambers at Auschwitz, or that this is in any way a factually
defensible position, rather than Nazi wank?


Later mails

Mails sent to imc-uk-features from people who have not previously been active in the IMC UK collective are being collected here rather than being posted through to the list

Why are Gilad Atzmon's anti-Semitic articles still up on Indymedia?
tony greenstein 
Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:31:14 -0800 (PST)

On the 24th October I wrote to Indymedia asking that the post from Gilad Atzmon 'Saying No to the Hunters of Goliath' be taken down because it was anti-Semitic and a thinly veiled justification for the Nazi holocaust.  Various excuses were given as to why a decision could not be taken quickly, but over 5 weeks later nothing whatsoever has been done about this article or indeed any other article. 
I won't go over the arguments as the moderators will be more than aware of why attributing the Nazi holocaust to the 'unpopularity' of the Jews of pre-war Europe is as unacceptable as justifying the Nazi murder of gypsies and gays for example.  One might expect that where an article is alleged to be racist and there is good foundation for that allegation that the article would be taken down pending a decision, instead of leaving it up until or if a decision is made.  By adopting the latter course people can only make one assumption, viz. that racism is not taken seriously by the Indymedia collective.
Indeed this would seem to be justified by the fact that an article which calls George Galloway a 'paki lover', although 'hidden' is in fact very visible.  One might have hoped that this kind of overt racism would be deleted not 'hidden' (i.e. covered with a grey background).
Why are personal attacks, disguised as an article 'The Embarrassing Case of Tony Greenstein' by Atzmon allowed to stay up on Indymedia?  Atzmon believes that spent convictions for things like shoplifting have any relevance to the question of his anti-Semitism.  Is this a view widely shared on the Indymedia collective?  It also repeats the libellous allegation, which The Times has now conceded is false, that I was guilty of harassment or worse of Zionist students 26 years ago.  What relevance does this have to the mission statement of Indymedia?
One might also ask why another Atzmon article on Indymedia, 'Purim Special: From Esther to AIPAC' is up.  It is not news, it has nothing to do with grassroots struggles, which is supposed to be the reason for Indymedia existing.  It asks why various Jewish anti-Zionist historians like Norman Finkelstein and Lenni Brenner, do not 'dare(s) engage in a dialogue with people like David Irving. The reason is obvious.  A dialogue with fascists and fascist apologists can only legitimise their attempts to pretend that millions of people weren't murdered by the Nazis and other assorted fascists between 1939-45.  If Atzmon were not a racist and anti-Semite, why would he challenge people to debate with the discredited Irving and his ilk?  And what has this to do with Indymedia and the liberation of humanity?  It would appear that Indymedia is going soft on certain forms of racism.  although FTP will no doubt squeal about 'censorship' etc., it has always been accepted by the anti-fascist movement that 'free speech' for fascists means no speech for their victims. 
'Most of the scholars, if not all of them, do not challenge the Zionist narrative, namely Nazi Judeocide, yet, more than a few are critical of the way Jewish and Zionist institutes employ the Holocaust. Though some may dispute the numbers (Shraga Elam), and others question the validity of memory (Ellis, Finkelstein), no one goes as far as revisionism, not a single Holocaust religion scholar dares engage in a dialogue with the so-called ‘deniers’ to discuss their vision of the events or any other revisionist scholarship.'
And there is yet another anti-Semitic article by Atzmon on Indymedia. 'Palestinian Solidarity Discourse and Zionist Hegemony'.  This article claims that Jews in the Palestine solidarity movement are 'gatekeepers'.  In this he compares German supporting Nazis in Britain during the war to Jews in the PS movement, in other words Jews are outsiders, strangers, pursuing what Atzmon and his devotee Mary Rizzo calls the Jewish agenda or interest.
'Let’s try to think of an imaginary situation in which a dozen exiled German dissident intellectuals insist upon monitoring and controlling Churchill’s addresses to the British public at the peak of the Blitz. Every time Churchill speaks his heart calling the British people to stand firm against Germany and its military might, the exiled dissident Germans raise their voice: “It isn’t Germany, Mr. Prime Minister, it is the Nazi party, the German people and the German spirit are innocent.” Churchill obviously apologizes immediately.
However, when it comes to the Palestinian solidarity discourse, we are somehow far more tolerant. In spite of the fact that it is the “Jews Only State” that we struggle against, we allow a bunch of self-appointed Jewish leaders and activists to become our gatekeepers. As soon as anyone identifies the symptoms of Zionism with some fundamental or essential Jewish precepts a smear campaign is launched against that person.
So the simple question is when are Indymedia's moderators going to stop sitting on their hands and hoping this will go away and take some action?
I also enclose an article that I wrote, for those interested, on Atzmon's anti-Semitism.  Contrary to the claims of FTP, because this was written in 2005, Atzmon did state (as he has admitted re other corrections in his article 'On anti-Semitism' that '“We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously...' 
I do take it seriously but the question is whether Indymedia, which describes itself as 'A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.' takes all forms of racism seriously.
Tony Greenstein
>>  Original post of October 24th 2007
Re:  Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath
I have been forwarded the post below from Moshe Machover. Moshe is an absolutely solid
Israeli Jewish anti-Zionist. I agree with every word. I have posted.  I really think the article should be taken down.
I've corresponded with Dave Parks who gave me this e-mail address.  He said that you usually 'hide' rather than erase articles but I would ask that you make an exception in this case.  The article justifies the holocaust by suggesting that it was the victims of the Nazis who brought the catastrophe on themselves because of their unpopularity.  This is not merely factually incorrect (Ian Kershaw's 'Hitler Myth' and 'Popular Dissent and Opinion in the Third Reich' show this is not so in Germany) but racist. 
Atzmon himself is very close to a holocaust denial position and has described 'The Holocaust Wars' by Paul Eisen, a fulsome tribute to Ernst Zundel, an arden holocaust denier presently in a W German prison, as a 'great text'.  He has and does wax lyrical on international Jewish conspiracies.  He has described a number of Jewish anti-Zionists, including myself, in an article the Protocls of the Learned Elders of London, a clear reference to the infamous Czarist forgery.
On most occasions accusations of anti-Semitism, especially by Zionists against those supporting the Palestinians are a form of defamation.  In this case they are unfortunately true.
In solidarity
Tony Greenstein
PS:  If you look at the comments section, in which Atzmon poses under the name 'knuckles' he also makes various defamatory remarks:
'The problem for many of us however, regarding Mr Greenstein's credibility is that he has a criminal record for stealing someone else's credit card, and using it to make various purchases of "toys". He also has a record of physical and voilent assaults on Jews.'
and racist remarks:
'"the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their racial brothers Tony Greastein, Mark Elf and Roland Rance were unpopular in the PSC AGM just a few months ago.'
However, maybe Greenstein can tell us whether or not Jews were involved with Bolshevism....or was it just a Nazi fantasy? If Greenstein doesn't know the answer, perhaps he will find the time to read the invaluable "Jewish Century" by the Harvard Prof Yuri Slezkine.....
knuckles: How exactly, Tony? By suggesting that Jews look into their endless tale of destruction and try to understand what is it about them that doesn't agree with the world? Atzmon suggests that this is the only way to save the Jews and stop others from wanting to harm them. 
In most 'Knuckes' contributions like the above Atzmon purports to suggest that he is not Atzmon.  However in a post at 00.04 of 23.10.07. he forgets his alias and both writes in the first person and signs off as Atzmon:
'Unlike Elf, Rosen and Greenstein who believe that they are quite a lot better than other Jews just because they use a slightly different recipe for their Gefilte fish, I believe in a severe form of critical self-reflection....
Unlike you righteous Jews, I would always start with myself, but somehow you are all intelligent enough to realise that my self-reflection exposes your Judeo-centric politics as a severe form of moronic self-loving.

Last night we were headlining a massive concert for Palestine in Nottingham, the place was completely sold out, 2 weeks ago we did the same for MAP at the 606 in London. Again it sold out 2 weeks in advance. We are now becoming a household name and you seem to become nothing more than a bunch of racially-orientated assholes. 

I  wish you luck. Don’t ever stop celebrating your revolting symptoms in public. Please don’t stop fighting me, you are the best glimpse into Jewish self-loving and Zionism in particular.

Gilad Atzmon
mail e-mail:

>> I don't know who to contact and you I know are more acquainted with these
>> things.
>> bw
>> Tony
>> M Machover wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:52:26 +0100
>> To: "List, JBIG":;
>> From: M Machover
>> Subject: Gilad Atzmon
>> Hi,
>> I have come across a piece by Gilad Atzmon, "Saying NO to the Hunters
>> of Goliath".
>> The substantive core of this article -- basically a review of a book
>> by Yoav Limor and Ofer Shelah -- is about the 2006 Lebanon war and
>> Israel's debacle in it, and is quite unobjectionable. It repeats
>> things that have been said about the 2006 Lebanon War, and are by now
>> quite well known to those who have followed the Israeli press.
>> But GA, being what he is, packages it with his usual barely hidden
>> anti-semitism.
>> In his preamble he tells us that "Within the Judaic worldview,
>> history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary
>> opposition principle." This is a typical stereotypical generalization
>> -- as if there is such a thing as a "Judaic worldview", apparently
>> unchanging over centuries.
>> Further; "The tendency to personalise and concretise history is
>> rather common amongst Jews." Really?
>> But a real gem follows:
>> "... the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in
>> the
>> Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago.
>> Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that
>> blinded
>> the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of
>> the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the
>> first place. Would the Zionists understand the real meaning of their
>> Holocaust, the contemporary Israelite may be able to prevent the
>> destruction that may be awaiting them in the future."
>> Please read this carefully. He is comparing here the -- perfectly
>> justified -- present hatred for Israel in the Middle East, with the
>> "unpopularity"(!!!) from which European Jews suffered in the 1940s!
>> You, I and GA agree that if a destruction awaits Israel in the
>> future, it will be a consequence of its present actions. What he is
>> implying here is that the same is also true of the destruction of
>> European Jewry six decades ago. This is not Holocaust denial; it is
>> rather Holocaust justification! Or, at the very least, partly blaming
>> it on the victims.
>> Like Zionist propaganda, GA conflates anti-Zionism with Jew-baiting.
>> Zionist propaganda does it in order to de-legitimize anti-Zionism; GA
>> does it in order to legitimize his Judeophobia.
>> ATB, MM
>> Dave Parks wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>> I don't understand this. I haven't received an e-mail from you it - so I
>> have no idea what this is about. Could you clarify?

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

Mikey - A Zionist troll friend of Atzmon gets in on the act
tony greenstein 
Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:56 -0800 (PST)

How interesting.  Mikey, a right-wing Zionist troll usually associated with supporters of the late Meir kahane now posts to Indymedia offering his sage advice.  Mind he is also a drinking partner of Atzmon so I guess he has good reason.

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. 

The Israelis, the Palestinians, and illogical argument
Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:21 +0000

Dear Comrades,

I am occasional reader but never a poster to this site so I do hope that you will print my message.  I have been following this debate about Palestine, Zionism and antisemitism and the debates causes me a substantial amount of concern.

On the one hand we have a group of people posting to this board that claim to support the Palestinians, are opposed to the idea of the State of Israel and say that they will support anything that the Palestinians want. This level of support would include supporting acts of terror and the rampant antisemitism inherent within the Hamas Charter.  Of all the quotes from the Prophet  they could have used, why have they highlighted the following  one in their Charter?

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

The Charter also states:

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

For anyone that knows anything about the history of antisemitism, they would be aware that the Protocols of Elders of Zion was  a notorious antisemitic Tzarist forgery.

This group also openly support the killing of Jews via suicide missions.


That is one side of the argument-

On the other hand, there is a second group of people who also claim to support the Palestinians and are opposed to the State of Israel. This group includes the likes of Mark Elf who stated that he "would truly gladly see Israel, as a zionist state, wiped from the map"

So all of these people claim to support the Palestinians and the end of the State of Israel. Now, I can comprehend an anarchist position that they want to see an end to all states. There is a long anarchist tradition of such thought – but there is not a tradition that it starts with Israel.  Those Marxists on this blog seem to to put the end of the State of Israel before other considerations and that method unfairly treats one country differently from others.  This singling out of one sovereign state for destruction is a disgrace. Moreover, the continued rhetoric of support for the Palestinians leaves no care about the Israelis including the Israeli working class.  The Palestinians are clambering for their own state and the Israseli working class also want their own state. A more logical position to hold is to argue that both the Palestinians and the Israelis should have a state – i.e. supporting a 2 state solution.


Now an illogical argument against this is that Israel is a "settler state."  What has that got to do with the price of eggs I wonder? America is a settler state, as is Australia and other countries around the world. I do not hear an argument that America  should be handed back to Native Americans from those Marxists who are opposed to America. They are being inconsistent. On the one hand they argue against Israel existing because it is a "settler state" but do not condemn other settler states in the same manner.

Another illogical argument is that not only is Israel a "settler state" but it is also a "colonial settler state." Firstly, so what if it is, but more importantly it is ahistorical as it ignores the fact that many Jews who emigrated to Palestine/Israel came from countries such as Yemen, Egypt, Iraq etc and they can hardly count as colonial setllers.

The argument is extended to argue that a reason Israel should no longer exist and in the words of Mark Elf can be "wiped from the map" is that it is backed by Imperialism. Well it is true, America and Britain does back Israel. If that is a cause for a country to no longer exist then why do I not hear calls for Egypt to wiped from the map? Again there is inconsistency in the arguments.

A further argument used is that Israel is a "racist"  country because it allows any Jew to "return" but does not allow Palestinians who may have been evicted in 1948 from returning.  This is factually incorrect and ignores Israeli law. For those genuinely interested they will be able to see what the law is in the following book  - David Kretzmer  "The Legal Status of Arabs in Israel" (Boulder: Westview Press, 1990). If they carry out that exercise they will be able to see that  many making claims are ill informed -  See also the following cases in the Israeli courts

Khaldi v Minister of Interior  (1951) 6 P.D. 52, Raas v. Minister of Interior (1951) 6 P.D. 480, Bader v. Minister of Interior (1952) 7 P.D. 366, Abu Daoud v. Minister of Interior (1952) 7 P.D. 1081 Quiyon v. Minister of Defence (1953) 8 P.D. 301 and Saief v Commissioner of Police (1952) 7 P.D. 257

Away from the above legal cases that disproves their point, they argue that the law of return is racist because Jews are given a special privilege over non Jews in citizenship rights. Again they are singling out a country – but this time ludicrously – for having positive discrimination. Each country in the world has an immigration policy of some kind and for example in the USA, you have more chance of obtaining say a green card if you are Irish as opposed to being British. I do not hear screams of racism because you can live in the UK easily if you are French but cannot get citizenship rights so easily if you are say from Nigeria. If the Law of Return is racist, it is only racist in line with immigration policies of other states.  No doubt a Palestinian State is created, that state will also have its own immigration policies.  

Then I hear the argument that the Zionists "stole" the land and it should be returned to the Palestinians.  Again this is simply not true as before the Jews got a state the land was  under the British mandate – hence if it is to be returned to anyone, then it is the British that have a claim. Now after the British  left Mandate Palestine, the United Nations voted to split the land and have 2 states – A Jewish state and an Arab state. David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency accepted this partition and the Arab countries did not. They launched a war against Israel – had they not done so, there could have been an Arab state then. Similarly after the 1967 war when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza they could have been withdrawn but there  were the famous "Three Nos of Khartoum" when the Arab countries pledged there would be no peace, no negotiations and no recognition of the State of Israel.

In fact, every argument I have ever heard for the ending of Israel in isolation is a nonsense.  Those that that cause themselves socialist and those that seek fairness and justness in the world should certainly seek a Palestinian state but they should not at the same time seek to wipe country from the map.


Re: Imc-uk-features Digest, Vol 55, Issue 33
tony greenstein 
Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:31:30 -0800 (PST)

If you look at  Mary Rizzo's post on this debate she says and gives url references to the fact that she and Atzmon have been posting articles everywhere saying that  Indymedia have stood up to the 'bullies' who want Indymedia to take down anti-semitic stuff.  Thus assuming that a decision had already been made.  We haven't done this till now though I'm obviously going to have to reply as we did want to keep it relatively internal although we did send e-mails to left lists concerning what was happening.
Tony Greenstein

Saying no to racism - saying no to Atzmon and anti-semitism
tony greenstein 
Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:46:51 -0800 (PST)

Contrary to what phunkee writes, I have certainly not harassed ftp.  He wrote to me first, not the other way around.  But this nitpicking is irrelevant.  The question is simply whether or not Indymedia aligns itself with the small anti-Semitic current on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity movement.  Having posted articles myself, including the Police attack on the Lebanon demonstration in 2005, and the secret taping of Brighton Police Commander Moore, I have no doubt it is incredibly useful to activists.  Why allow racists a space?
Atzmon talks about ‘zionist lobbying’ in reference to our request to take down his article.  None of those who have written are Zionists.  This is one reason why we say that Atzmon is anti-Semitic.  He equates Jews as Zionists, even when they have fought for years against Zionism.  Yes my dad was a rabbi.  I’m an atheist.  But Judaism’s view of what is kosher has nothing to do with a ‘Judaic world view’ which could be taken from Julius Streicher.  Any more than Muslims are trying to take over the world, as the neo-con right now argue (Huntingdon, Perle & co.).
Atzmon says that ‘unlike Greenstein, who was banned from several institutes for accusations of anti -Semitism as well as violence against Jews,…’  The latter accusation, as Atzmon is aware, is libellous and untrue.  I have been repeatedly attacked as anti-Semitic by the Zionist Union of Jewish Students.  They have never succeeded in banning me because comrades in Anti-Fascist Action asked them to put up or shut up.  By saying Jewish anti-Zionists are in fact ‘crypto-Zionists’, Atzmon does his best to support the allegation that all Jews are Zionists and that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism.  That is why he is dangerous to the Palestinian cause.
Atzmon claims that there isn’t a single reference to ‘race’ in his writings, yet he admits he attacks ‘Jewishness’ although there is no such thing, unless you believe that all Jews hold to the same ideas or philosophy.  Absurdly he claims that ‘Jews do not form a race, yet Jewish identity is somehow racially orientated.’  This is utterly absurd as well as self-contradictory.  Jewish identity takes many forms yet Atzmon subsumes communist, socialist, anarchist and Zionist Jews under one heading.
Atzmon criticises Jews Against Zionism for not admitting non-Jews.  This is factually incorrect.  The only reason it and similar groups even exist is because Zionism claims that all Jews are Zionist and that Israel’s actions are in the name of all Jews.  Nothing more.  Anyone who agrees with opposing Zionism and isn’t a racist can join JAZ.
Mary Rizzo claims that I have never supported the right of return.  This is laughable.  I have signed a number of adverts in the Guardian and Times renouncing my ‘right of return’ to Israel and supporting a Palestinian right of return.  I was even a member of the editorial collective of Return, a magazine which explicitly supported the Palestinian right of return.  Why Mary, who knows these things, should lie I will leave to others to decide.
I would ask that you do not put this post from Atzmon up on Indymedia lists.  Apart from being libellous it is deeply anti-Semitic.  Atzmon says that ‘this very binary opposition leads towards crucifixion.’  He repeats the old canard that Jews are Christ Killers.  This is medieval anti-Semitism.  He also complains that we are ‘nailing intellectuals and Palestinian solidarity institutions to the wood.’  The symbolism should be obvious. ‘they did it to Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir.’  We have nailed noone but we did argue that Shamir, who considers Auschwitz was only an internment camp, and Eisen, who believes there were no gas chambers, are a danger to the Palestinian cause.
I have asked Atzmon this question before and I ask it of the Indymedia collective.  How does denying the Holocaust help the Palestinians?  Noone is hated more by the Zionists than Prof. Norman Finkelstein and his book ‘Holocaust Industry.’  Yet both his parents were both survivors of concentration camps.  Is he too a liar despite his being a prominent anti-Zionist?  Why when Zionists accuse their opponents of anti-Semitism does Atzmon go out of his way to prove them correct? 
We are no more ethnic campaigners when opposing Atzmon than Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods were when picketing Israel’s Expo 2007 last weekend where flats on the West Bank were being sold. Or when many of us join pickets against the new asylum centre at Gatwick or other similar campaigns.  I can’t ever remember seeing Atzmon and friends engaging in practical solidarity with the Palestinians.  Denouncing Jews who have broken from Zionism is his speciality. 
The fact is that when we were organising the Boycott campaign, on the lines of the same campaign against apartheid South Africa, Atzmon denounced it as ‘book burning’.  Even though this campaign has rocked the Zionists.
Atzmon, Rizzo et al complain of being witchhunted, victimised and portray themselves as victims.  The National Front and BNP also did this when we prevented them marching or organising.  We, and I mean the labour movement and the anti-fascist movement, including many anarchists like Class War, recognised that ‘freedom’ for racists and fascists meant death to minorities.  Today’s propaganda against asylum seekers means death and torture for those deported.  I don’t see that there is any ‘freedom’ for racists.  Atzmon’s anti-Semitic diatribes weaken the opposition to Zionism, which is a murderous and racist project.  How does his twaddle about the ‘Judaic world view’ and his absurd inclusion of Christ, Spinoza and Marx help the Palestinians?
We reject racism, all racism, including both Zionism and the racism of Atzmon.  I hope that Indymedia also rejects the attempt by Atzmon and Rizzo to portray themselves as victims.  They are nothing of the kind.
Tony Greenstein


Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. 

Why Indymedia should question the values of Islamophobe Tony Greenstein
"mary rizzo" 
Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:17:13 +0100

Tony Greenstein says:

 "And just one final point. I’m not going to reply to the
ramblings of Mary Rizzo, though I would certainly stand by my opposition
to suicide bombings in Israel, even if that means criticising

I say. Of course he isn't going to respond, because he'd have to come out
being the most inconsistent being on the planet and it's pretty difficult
for him to defend what he said and come out looking respectable. The fact
that Tony has written that he does not respect, nor should he, the
Palestinians, that he gives a toss about their vote, that Fatah "at
least" was secular, (therefore, they would have been better, a
choice that -ahem- only the electorate is able to determine), that the
victory of Hamas should be equated with the victory of Hitler in
Germany.... it's pretty amazing, and I would love to see him say this on
a board or site run by Palestinians. Secular or not, they would run him
out of the room. This is why he confines his activities to the Jewish or
UK cyber spheres. Not only is it outrageous and completely insulting to a
people that is FAR more politicised than Tony himself will ever be, and
would know better than he would what suits them, it is a-historical and

That he was endorsing violating a cultural boycott he was even promoting,
that he most certainly knows what is good for Palestinians, and what is
good, obviously, is what will be accepted by a faction he identifies
himself with in Israel. As if the Palestinians are puppets who must earn
respect, respect which has a set of conditions around it. That he does
not campaign for the Right of Return (I can't remember him ever calling
for it) makes one wonder if he understands the Palestinians' situation
and aspirations at all. All of this alone should be reason enough that
those of us actively involved in  Pro-Palestinian actions and
campaigns have to keep him well beyond arms' length. He is precisely the
WORST sort of person to be dictating what should be happening in
"the world of solidarity". Most activists have gotten wise to
him, and this is a relief, but his litany, repeated ad nauseam just like
the Queen of Hearts "Off with their heads!!" makes him a
character that is almost as laughable as he is disgusting. Both
sensations compete for predominance. When one is, like I have been for
ages, subject to his abuse, one simply gets used to it, but has to remind
oneself that not everyone else is prepared for the disgusting rain of
verbal abuse and plain uppityness that he unleashes. Other people have to
be warned about what he is. 

Again, referring to this single phrase of Tony, no one is promoting
terrorism or suicide bombings, and Tony instrumentally links Hamas with
suicide bombings. If he knew any STATISTICS, he'd see that they are not
directly implicated in them! That they have also distanced themselves
from them, and that it was indeed the Hamas that had held the truce
longer than any other political party, including the Israelis. His
disinformation is straight out of the annals of the neocons, if not
straight into the laps of the theories of the Islamophobes. What's Tony's
Agenda? To isolate the Gazans and Palestinians even more from a
resolution to their problem? Is this the way he's going to spread
socialism to the Arabs who he doesn't respect for their political
illiteracy, when they are not outright religiously oriented. 

They should have caved in long ago, according to Tony, and voted for a
party that has NO consensus and no nationalist vision, because the value
of their socialism was intrinsic and "of course" the Westerners
in the far left parties of Europe would have defended them. What a load
of steaming crap. 

If all of his intolerance of Palestinians and lack of respect for them
weren't enough, he denies there is a lobby, he attempts to shut up anyone
who dare mention this FACT, he smears and distorts in order to push his
own very grey agenda of some kind of socialism that is not relevant to
Palestinians. Why doesn't he spend his time better, trying to improve the
Israeli society? That would be at least a target he could reach. I'd let
him go any way he wanted with his harebrained schemes if that was his
campaign. Our paths would never cross either. I don't bother with Israeli
progressives. The best ones are those like Dorothy Naor who when I asked
about the boycott said, "boycott me, please". They aren't
looking for internal consensus among the "progressive
Israelis". They have realised that the victims are our priority and
the victims are the Palestinians. Whatever it takes to support them, that
is what we have to stand for. 

Indymedia moderators caving in to someone like that would be quite a
pity, because it would have resonance in internet, where the Palestinians
are at some level respected and supported with passion and dedication. It
would put Indymedia on "the other side" of the Palestinians. 

And, obviously, he wonders why his letters aren't given major space. It
is so self-evident, that it's not even worth questioning why. Why is Tony
never published anywhere? Because his stuff is unreadable, contradictory
and venomous. It is only print-worthy in minor jewish leftist things like
Socialist Unity, or CIF, where the Zionists seem to dictate what goes up.
I think Tony is the only one that is oblivious to this. 


And even off-list mails

After the discussion was moved here these were mailed personally to people.

Atzmon's 'Goliath' article - carried by both Indymedia & the 'truthseeker's' Holocaust Denial site
tony greenstein 
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:38:57 -0800 (PST)
from [] by via HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:38:57 PST

I realise that I'm going to get the usual whinging about posting to individual members of the Indymedia collective and other posters.  But since all comments about Atzmon go to a junk page now there is no choice.

Not for the first time, Atzmon has - appropriately enough - posted to a site which also regularly carries holocaust denial stuff.  I realise that this will not bother at least one member of the Indymedia collective - 'freethepeeps' - who is all over the net defending Atzmon, but it should worry a collective that has the following guidelines on Discrimination:
# Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
Now this is a lie.  For nearly a month now Atzmon's article has been the subject of complaints.  Yet nothing has been done.  The excuse is that the collective can't get it together to meet.  But if a racist article is posted then there should be a method of taking it down pending a decision.  Otherwise the guidelines should be scrapped because they have about as much relevance as the poster I saw visiting a mate on remand at Lewes Prison - this prison is committed to striving to eliminate discrimination or some such guff.  It's just purely hypocritical.
Tony Greenstein

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. 

Re: Atzmon's 'Goliath' article - carried by both Indymedia & the 'truthseeker's' Holocaust Denial site
tony greenstein 
Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:51:33 -0800 (PST)
from [] by via HTTP; Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:51:33 PST

Twice a reply to Atzmon's article has been posted but it has not appeared.  I am therefore posting a reply directly to members of the collective and others whose posts aren't diverted to the junk page.
There are no gatekeepers – just anti-racists
Indymedia are rightly known for the support of grassroots struggles against the forces of law and order, arms companies etc. That is why it is regrettable that, despite repeated requests from a number of people, Jewish and non-Jewish over the past 3 weeks, they have continued to put up on their web pages an article by Gilad Atmon that is deeply anti-Semitic. Why is this important?
Last summer in Britain, a series of different union conferences – the National Union of Journalists, the University College Union, the public service UNISON and Transport & General Workers Union - passed motions concerning a boycott of the Israeli state and its institutions. This sent the Zionist movement into a frenzy. Starving the people of Gaza into submission is one thing, but interfering with the ‘academic freedom’ of Israeli academics is quite another. No matter that Israeli universities are complicit to the highest degree in the oppression of the Palestinians, that Dan Halutz, Chief of Israel’s Defence Staff and war criminal praised Haifa University, in its February 2006 newsletter, for tailoring its courses to meet the needs of the security services. and in its March 2007 newsletter Haifa boasted that the heads of all 4 security agencies were Haifa graduates.
The reason that there was wall to wall establishment opposition to a Boycott, with everyone from Alan Dershowitz to Tony Blair and George Bush denouncing the idea, was because it called into question a state that is built on giving privileges to its Jewish citizens and denying them to the Palestinians. For the first time ever 4 out of 6 Israeli University Presidents issued a statement, on the day of the academic boycott debate, calling for restrictions on Palestinian students to be lifted. The prospect of an academic boycott achieved more, in terms of getting Israeli academics to speak out, in 1 month than had been achieved in 40 years.,,2091528,00.html
When I spoke at the UNISON conference in support of the Boycott. I spoke not just as a union member but as someone who is Jewish. Why? Because when the Zionists accuse supporters of the Palestinians of being anti-Semitic it makes sense for Jewish members to be the first to reject this libel. But according to Gilad Atzmon this was just another example of how it is ‘Jews and only Jews who engage in racially orientated peace campaigning.’ and even worse ‘since acting politically under a Jewish banner is in fact the very definition of Zionism, it is reasonable to deduce that all Jewish left activity is in practice not more than a form of left Zionism.’ It is a strange argument that says if Jewish people stand up and say they oppose Zionism, because they are Jews, they are actually Zionists! The obvious implication is that all Jews are Zionists, which is just what the Zionists themselves say!
When Zionist accusations of anti-Semitism against their opponents have started to lose their impact, Gilad Atzmon and his loyal supporter, Mary Rizzo, seem determined to prove that the Zionists are right after all. How else are we to judge statements such as "we must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously…. …. American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world…."(Atzmon has replaced ‘Jewish people’ by Zionists but the meaning remains the same) or ‘it looks as if Zionist lobbies control American foreign politics. After so many years of independence, the United States of America is becoming a remote colony of an apparently far greater state, the Jewish state.’ The idea that Israel, rather than being the watchdog of imperialism and its attack dog is in fact controlling US foreign policy smacks of Jewish conspiracy theories. Even the very term gatekeeper is derived from Atzmon’s assertion that Jews are holding back support for the Palestinians. ‘In spite of the fact that it is the 'Jews Only State' that we struggle against, we allow a bunch of self-appointed Jewish leaders and activists to become our gatekeepers.’ And these are but a few examples of Atzmon’s writings.
The notion that anti-Semitism has anything to do with solidarity with the Palestinians is absurd. Historically anti-Semitism was the other side of the Zionist coin. As Isaac Deutscher explained of the Jewish workers in pre-war Poland ‘To them anti-Semitism seemed to triumph in Zionism, which recognised the legitimacy and the validity of the old cry ‘Jews get out!' The Zionists were agreeing to get out’. 'The Non Jewish Jew ' & Other Essays- pp.66/7. But the founder of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl had operated on the basis that ‘the anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends... our allies.’ (Diaries, pp. 83/4). From Czarist Russia to Nazi Germany Zionism collaborated with anti-Semitism, which it saw as the natural reaction of non-Jews to the Jews in their midst. Without anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionist settlers. The only effect of a growth of anti-Semitism today would be a new wave of settlers emigrating to Israel.
This is the reason that I wrote to Indymedia, a radical, anti-racist and anti-imperialist site asking that Atzmon’s ‘Saying no to the hunters of Goliath’ be taken down. There are plenty of right-wing and conspiracy web sites, including Mary Rizzo’s PeacePalestine blog which regularly carry Atzmon’s anti-Semitic nonsense. But for radical sites like Indymedia to carry it is not only to give legitimacy to Atzmon’s views but also to call into question the Indymedia collective’s own commitment to its guidelines, which proclaim that racist and other chauvinistic material will be hidden. Atzmon’s article speaks of a ‘world Judaic view’ and explains that ‘the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago.’ This is apparently ‘the real meaning’ of the Nazi holocaust. It wasn’t fascism or crazy ideas of racial supremacy that led to Auschwitz, it was that the Jews and presumably the Gypsies, Slavs and gays were ‘unpopular’. By the same logic the Palestinian’s situation can also be blamed on their ‘unpopularity’.
The reason that Jews were allegedly ‘unpopular’ in Nazi Germany, (& this is arguable for anyone who has read any serious academic studies such as Ian kershaw’s Hitler Myth or Popular Dissent in the 3rd Reich) is because they were repeatedly targetted by the Nazis as the embodiment of both capitalism and communism.
To then blame the victims for their alleged unpopularity is to adopt the arguments of the oppressor. But this is no surprise. Atzmon has openly supported the Deir Yassin Remembered group, which includes holocaust deniers such as Board Member Israel Shamir who openly states that Auschwitz was ‘an internment facility’ as opposed to an "industrial extermination factory"…’ it is clear that there is another agenda here
When the Boycott campaign was at its height, at the Board of Deputies of British Jews meeting ‘deputies also gave vent to their anger – particularly at Jews who supported the move (for boycott).’ the Jewish Chronicle (22.6.07.) ‘Blair adds his backing - The Boycott Battle ’ Just as in South Africa, where the apartheid regime detested white opponents of apartheid, so Zionist leaders villify their Jewish opponents as ‘self haters’. Yet ironically Gilad Atzmon seems to take a special delight in attacking Jewish anti-Zionists.
So when Mary says that the primary concern must be justice for the Palestinians I agree. But why, when the campaign for an academic boycott was forcing Israelis to come to terms with their actions, did Gilad Atzmon oppose that boycott? In an interview with Ms Rizzo, when asked whether he supported a boycott, he replied that: ‘Yet I have some serious reservations, which I am inclined to mention…. I truly believe in freedom of speech and oppose any form of Maccarthyism or intellectual censorship of any sort. Thus, interfering with academic freedom isn’t exactly something I can blindly advocate. Unlike some of my best enlightened friends, I am against any form of gatekeeping or book burning. But it goes further, I actually want to hear what Israelis and Zionists have to say. I want to read their books. I want to confront their academics.’
So there we have it. An academic boycott is ‘book burning’ and no doubt the hundreds of Palestinian orgnisations calling for a boycott were book burners too. Book burning, let it not be forget, was a speciality of the Nazi regime. The real reason for Atzmon’s opposition was that among the leaders of the Boycott campaign were those who had been most critical of Atzmon, such as Birmingham University lecturer, Sue Blackwell, or exiled Israeli Professor Moshe Machover of Matzpen.
Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo are entitled to indulge in anti-Semitic rhetoric. What they are not entitled to do is wage their battles in the name of the Palestinians. And incidentally Indymedia have not rejected the request to hide the Goliath article on their site. They have yet to make a decision.
Tony Greenstein

tony greenstein  wrote:

    I realise that I'm going to get the usual whinging about posting to individual members of the Indymedia collective and other posters.  But since all comments about Atzmon go to a junk page now there is no choice.

    Not for the first time, Atzmon has - appropriately enough - posted to a site which also regularly carries holocaust denial stuff.  I realise that this will not bother at least one member of the Indymedia collective - 'freethepeeps' - who is all over the net defending Atzmon, but it should worry a collective that has the following guidelines on Discrimination:
  # Discrimination : posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination.
    Now this is a lie.  For nearly a month now Atzmon's article has been the subject of complaints.  Yet nothing has been done.  The excuse is that the collective can't get it together to meet.  But if a racist article is posted then there should be a method of taking it down pending a decision.  Otherwise the guidelines should be scrapped because they have about as much relevance as the poster I saw visiting a mate on remand at Lewes Prison - this prison is committed to striving to eliminate discrimination or some such guff.  It's just purely hypocritical.
    Tony Greenstein
    Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. 

Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. 

Mails sent back to the list after another post hidden

FTP allowed to deny rebuttal of holocaust denier
tony greenstein 
Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:23:20 -0800 (PST)

Fine, so why hasn't the post in particular been taken down then?
FTP's excuses get even better.  Strange that the original pretext for not posting the article was it linked to far-right sites!  The fact that it did so in order to demonstrate what the honest holocaust denial sites were saying about their good friend was immaterial.  By the same logic any anti-fascist article that cites an article on a fascist site is also hidden?
In Peeps view the article is inaccurate.  It shows, quite clearly, that Atzmon has now moved to a holocaust denial position and that is why it is being censored, sorry hidden! In fact he doesn't even deny it himself, in the course of labelling the 'socialist unity' site 'socialist Jewnity'.  But no doubt that too is just one of his eccentricities.
What were the other excuses?  Ah yes, repeated content.  Strange that this doesn't apply to Atzmon himself!  The 'say not to hunters of goliath' article is a reprint from the same article on numerous sites, yet strangely nothing has been done.  Can't imagine why.
And libel.  Well if you search under 'knuckles' there are many libellous comments about me that Peeps is quite happy to add to. 
Of course the Police do this kind of thing very well, even better than Peeps.  A shop obstructing the highway with their ads etc. goes unnoticed.  But a protestor is always an obstruction.  Congratulations peeps. 
I understand Peeps did the same last year when he defended a certain Nimmon who said the gas chambers were 'discredited'.  I think Peeps has made it very clear what his views are.
Tony Greenstein
>>You still don't *get* open posting, do you Greenie?

Anyone is free to post anything they like, in any name they like, and it gpoes
directly to the wire. Volunteer admins then weed out the stuff they notice, or
which gets brought to their attention.

Now, why are you still asking for a response on why your post entitled "Gilad
Atzmon: now an open holocaust denier" was hidden.
For starters you have since acknowledged that

"Now my dear Peeps, I don't take my cues from Gehrig. Atzmon won't openly come out of course and say he's a holocaust denier, not yet anyway, but it is clear that that is what he is about. "

So, the post was INACCURATE from the start - in fact it was libellous.

Furthermore the content of the post was taken from your comments on another thread - ie REPEATED CONTENT.

On top of that, the main thrust of it is that Atzmon distributed a text to his private reading list in 2005. Its now 2008, that makes it NON NEWS.

Thats 3 guidelines it breaks - as you've been told repeatedly, and the hiding was correctly notified to the list.

Sheesh - anyone would think you were running some kind of cyber-stalking campaign in the run up to the network meeting.

Nobody is duty bound to respond to your malicious rubbish and I am getting sick of your slurs against me.

The fact is, your sad excuse for an article once again highlights the fact that you cannot be trusted as a source on Atzmon, because you lie, smear distort and quote out of context.


Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

Re: Gilad Atzmon - a Holocaust Denier
tony greenstein 
Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:33:36 -0800 (PST)

I don't know why Peeps isn't honest for once in his life.  Just admit you didn't like Gilad Atzmon being called a holocaust denier, because you've hitched your reputation to his bandwagon and therefore you hid the article.
Then let others decide whether or not it is, as you say, inaccurate.  After all, what is accurate about the Hunters of Goliath or the Embarrassing Case of TG (ad hominem - rules?) or the numberous other articles saying nothing at all on Indymedia.
But if Iremember from the April 07 debate, also on anti-Semitism, with fellow mods who you drove out, because you defended the idea that gas chambers are 'discredited' - a key lynchpin of holocaust denial incidentally - you objected to what you perceived as abuse.  Wonder what's the following Peeps has posted:
'While I was out supporting a demo for freedom of protest in the crypto-zionist's hometown, the scumbag was at his computer, posting what he knew from the ALEF list was strenuously denied by Atzmon and just for good measure, quoting from and liniking to a Holocaust revisionist site.'
In fact I was helping run a Palestine solidarity stall, but no matter, Peeps felt good playing hide and seek with the Police.  The wonder is that other mods have lost their tongues and allow an apologist for holocaust deniers to effectively run the roost.
Tony G

Re: Gilad Atzmon - a Holocaust Denier
tony greenstein 
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:12:45 -0800 (PST)

It's a strange internet stalker who the victim keeps writing to!
I wasnt involved in what happened in April 2007 all I saw is you doubting that saying that the gas chambers are 'discredited' has anything to do with the holocaust denial.  I'm not even interested in going through the where's and why fors of what happened in April since I wasn't involved in it and I have better things to do.
What I do know is that you have been at the forefront of defending Gilad Atzmon who is clearly anti-Semitic and his support for holocaust deniers.  That is undeniable, except by you.  Clearly it is no coincidence that you are the person once again making justifications for people who are either holocaust deniers or apologists or both for them. 
I know nothing about a HD report, what it says, whether it's a Zionist one or not.  Which of course would suit your purposes.  I am speaking specifically about the article I wrote which you censored, even though Atzmon has numerous articles posted, which have nothing to do with news, are long and repetitive but meet with your approval.  So draw your own conclusions.
I know nothing of Gehrig, have never met him, have never corresponded with him and I suspect our politics vastly differ, except that both of us are opposed to holocaust denial.  Does Indymedia want endless art icles from me?  No and I haven't supplied endless articles either.  I have put forward one, explaining why Atzmon is now effectively a holocuast denier.  You have suppressed it because you disagree with it.  If you are so concerned with 'endless articles' then why not apply the same criteria to Atzmon?  He has numerous articles, reports about himself, interviews etc. on Indymedia, including his most open holocaust denial article 'Esther to Aipac.'   Your bureaucratic excuses cut no ice.
It is unfortunate that I have to e-mail people directly because you seem able to block access via the lists.  That is what e-mail is for.  If people think their own version of netiquette is more important than their role in allowing a persistent defender of holocaust deniers a key role in moderating then that is their business.
I didn't cite a holocaust denial site as accurate.  Get your facts right.  I said in the article that I was prepared to give him the benefit of a very considerable doubt but that there was no smoke in his case without fire.  The problem is that the reports of what he said, and it isn't just from a holocaust denial site, I have a copy of the German report as translated and confirmed by his supporter Kristoffer Larson, is that it does indeed ring true.  The fact that open holocaust denial sites welcome Atzmon as one of their own is hardly of insignificance is it? 
You don't seem to understand how historians work.  You yourself quote what Eichmann said.  I've also quoted from Eichmanns interview, parts of which were reprinted in Life Magazine in 1960.  My citation is about the fact that he quotes the Zionists in Hungary and Kastner, of whom you probably know nothing, as having worked with him.  Zionists jump up and down and say how dare you quote from a Nazi.  This is obfuscation.  Clearly if all the proof for what the leader of the Jewish Agency in Hungary had done, saving the elite at the price of the masses, came from the Nazis there may be a question mark.  But the evidence of course goes far wider and Eichmann's is merely confirmatory, though powerful evidence.  The same goes for holocaust denial sites.  By itself it isn't proof, but it is part of the evidential picture.  And if you had had any experience in anti-fascist politics then you would know that articles about fascists often cite links to fascist sites for reasons which should be obvious, even to you.  So this is a spurious red herring to cover for someone who speaks about 'socialist Jewnity' the Zio holocaust narrative etc.  Your defence of these people discredits Indymedia not me and that is a problem for the other mods at the end of the day.  Clearly your first loyalty is to these holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and assorted racists.
I don't give toss why you call me a scumbag.  Your original accusation was that I was e-mailing whilst you were engaging in some activity for once.  When I pointed out that was a lie you went on to make further accusations.  Like a number others I didn't support the EDO march, not because I disagreed with their reasons for calling but how they organised it.  People in EDO know my views on this as I've already e-mailed people but it's none of your business as you've never had any involvement in the campaign anyway.
Whatever reasons you give for your latest act of censorship, your reasons are quite obvious.
Tony Greenstein

tony greenstein 
Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:33:57 -0800 (PST)

This must be a good case study in how to adopt the bureaucratic mentality.

NO - I don't want to contribute to any discussion on the newswire about my article.  I simply want the article, which is well sourced and researched, unhidden.

Why is that so difficult to understand?  Stop censoring criticism of Atzmon who has carte blanche when it comes to his postings on Indymedia UK.

All the excuses given so far for objecting to criticism of an anti-Semite and holocaust denier are so transparent as to be laughable.


Tony Greenstein

More Emails from Tony Greenstein

Subject: Indy Media UK Says Yes to Racists and Holocaust Deniers

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:28:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: tony greenstein 
Subject: Indy Media UK Says Yes to Racists and Holocaust Deniers

          Indymedia Capitulates To The Anti-Semites And Holocaust Deniers

    Maybe it was a mistake to expect anymore of them, but Indymedia does describe itself as a \221network
 of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots,
 non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.\222

It also has Guidelines which state under Discrimination:

posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia,
 sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination
may be hidden.

This guideline however has been completely ignored. It is inoperative. Some people, not myself, had high
 hopes that the two day meeting in Nottingham on 9-10 January 2008 would resolve these problems. Instead
 it led to the resignation of at least one more member and the entrenchment of the supporters of
 anti-Semitism and holocaust denial in the collective, led by ftp and jackslucid.

Most people know the story. Gilad Atzmon, a racist ex-Israeli has been allowed to post freely to
 Indymedia articles justifying the holocaust Say no to the Hunters of Goliath and legitimising
 revisionist historians Esther to Aipac. Those who have sought to respond to these articles have had
 their replies hidden by ftp with the acquiescence or worse of the collective.

Instead the IM Collective has adopted a new category. Articles which some want to hide and some want to
 display openly are now \221disputed\222. On the night of 10th January the Hunters article was declared
 disputed and then readmitted and then disputed, with red slabs \221disputed\222 all over it. By the
 morning these had changed to feint pink! By the time this article had been written all that was left was
 a message saying the article was disputed but otherwise it could be read as if it were any normal
 article on IM.

What is particularly outrageous is that the IM Collective decided to ban Tony Greenstein from posting,
 for being honest with the hapless mods., but when it came to Gilad Atzmon a \221block\222 was put on
 such a proposal by our old friend Free the Peeps (Roy Bard). In other words regardless of whether there
 is or is not a majority the proposal didn\222t go through. Result? The person who complained about
 anti-Semitism is banned and the anti-Semite is allowed to continue posting. And these people want us to
 believe they take racism serious?

And if to emphasise that the complainant was the problem the following was put in extra big letters!
Agree that what Greenstein has done and his campaign has been disruptive. All agreed this was the case.
 This is not a personal problem, it is a political problem. Responsibility of the collective to discuss

And who are the people that IM are defending? The minutes, which hide more than they reveal, apart from
 an inability to spell, contain a couple of sentences which sum up the problem:

\221There was a discussion about the anti-Semitism issue and indymedia's definitions about what
 constitutes anti-Semitism.
Concern that this is a prelude to an increasing climate of hiding Palestinian articles or criticisms of

And therein lies the rub. Zionists have for so long attacked supporters of the Palestinians and
 anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic, that now that the real anti-Semites are coming out of the woodwork, the
 IM Collective, and to be fair not only them, have difficulty in telling the difference between the
 genuine article and the person that the Zionists have defamed. It is the problem of crying wolf. But
 although the IM collective has little in the way of political theory or ideology, it isn\222t that
 difficult telling the difference between a false accusation of anti-Semitism and the real thing.

Let us take the petition in support of Mary Rizzo and Gilad Atzmon which has even been hidden by
 Atzmon\222s servile dogsbody, ftp:

Mary Rizzo, the editor of the anti-Semitic \221peacepalestine\222 blog posted the following comments on
 the Socialist Unity site vouching for the bonafides of one of the signatories to the above petition \226
 The Radical Press:

'The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely
 NOT anti-Semitic, but many who might not agree with its harsh critique on Israel might try to label it
 as such, so that people will create confusion between the two, and things never change.
I hope you realise that it is a valuable resource, and any campaigning made to insinuate that it is a
 racist site is not at all accurate.
Mary Rizzo

And indeed it is a valuable resource, albeit not for the reasons that Rizzo gives. It is valuable because
 it is instructive in the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. And if anyone believes
 otherwise then they are welcome to dip their toe in its poisoned waters.
But what are the 'thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis' that so impresses Mary
 Rizzo, who is not a woman to be easily impressed (except when it\222s Atzmon who\222s doing the
Well There are articles on the:
Jewish Banking Cartel (82) Jewish Holocaust Industry (77) Jewish Lobby (112) Jewish Media Monopoly (105)
 Jewish Porn Industry (50) Jews (148) Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution

There is a delightful article by Brother Daniel on the same site. Entitled (what else?)
By Brother Nathanael Kapner
Brother Nathanael
AMERICA IS NOW A JEW-RUN NATION. Here is a list of the prominent Jews who run America: [I wont bore you
 with the list]
Elsewhere we learn that \221Judaism is a "chameleon" culture/religion. It "becomes" whatever is necessary
 in order to deceive and trick non-Jews\222

"The Jew also believes he is destined to own and rule the whole world as a \221master race.\222"
"The Jews are not going to stop what they are doing to us! We are going to have to stop them, even if
 that means separating them from our midst permanently!"
"Jewish supremacists thrive and thieve more successfully in a country without a strong majority that is
 well-organized for its own self-interest, as whites used to be before the Jewish Trojan Hebrew Horse
 rode into town"
"the whole concept of "multiculturalism", the kind offered up like a steady dietary staple on a majority
 of college campuses, was created by Jews. In fact, as political dissident author Curtis Maynard
 explains, a Jewish woman actually wrote a whole primer to encourage and spread this alien ideology."
"Abortion is a modern and grisly Jewish death trade. Jews run 50% of abortuaries in America (though only
 comprising 2% of the population) and they make up the leadership of nearly every pro-abortion activist
 group\205. the main impetus or stimulus for the Jewish abortion cheerleaders is to dramatically lower
 the white birthrate, thereby killing off their chief competitors and decreasing the white surplus
"Most teens in America have a far more favorable view of homosexuals than their parents or grandparents
 ever did. But this is the Jewish way. Brainwash, propagandize and then recruit, recruit, recruit like
 hell! But as Jewish homosexual organizations try to indoctrinate sexually confused young people into the
 gay death style there seems to be more at work here than simple "tolerance" or "diversity" issues. This
 is an effort to tear asunder the notion of "traditional family" that has been the bedrock of Western
 survival\205.Though not all homosexual enthusiasts are Jewish, their leaders surely are."
"All of these facets of the Jewish blueprint have one central theme. They impose sickness and social
 disease and degeneracy and death by constant fiat." [4] January 31, 2008

[2] and

One wonders whether the IM collective would recognise the above as anti-Semitic? Chances are that ftp and
 the useful idiots who support him would no doubt think that it was just a case of exuberant
 anti-Zionism. One wonders whether the women (are there any women left?) on the collective recognise that
 a statement such as \221Abortion is a modern and grisly Jewish death trade\222 could come straight from
 Streicher\222s Der Stuermer.

These are the sick people that the IM Collective have hitched their wagon to. Instead of junking FTP,
 Phunkee and Jackslucid they have instead decided to give a free pass to genuine fascists and

Yes, after months of battling to get the Indymedia collective to bar holocaust deniers and anti-Semites
 from posting articles, we have a situation now, after their meeting at the weekend, whereby anti-Semites
 are welcome and their opponents are banned!

Below are 2 articles here and here which result from the fallout from the meeting in Nottingham at the
 weekend. Naturally they are hidden,

And If you want to know why Knuckles and her friend Atzmon are holocaust deniers just read

The Indymedia fellow-travellers with racism and anti-Semitism are incapable of telling the difference
 between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Some of them think they are doing Palestinians a favour by
 publishing this sort of garbage.

There is nothing the Zionists love better than to demonstrate that supporters of the Palestinians are
 anti-Semitic. Indymedia UK has now done all it could to prove them right.

Tony Greenstein

    Posted by azvsas at 01:59 0 comments

Subject: Hiddens and the disinformation campaign against us (Chris)

This email would be funny if it wasn't so sad -- Tony Greenstein has been taken in by two fabricated reports from the network meeting, these fabricated reports were reposted by Andy Newman on his blog, in addition he believes that a fabricated withdrawal from indymedia is also real...

From: tony greenstein 
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Hiddens and the disinformation campaign against us (Chris)

Ah, but therein lies the problem.  How can you publish a statement when there is no concensus and
 everything is disputed?  How indeed can one justify publishing the 'disputed' Atzmon article whilst
 hiding all critical comment?  And how does one justify hiding the repercussions of the network meeting
 and pretending everything was hunky dory?   It's like a meeting of the Soviet Politburo for those who

  But it is a good example of a social study into how those with pretensions to be radical so easily ape
 those they are fighting against and slip into the role of censors.  Really negates the purpose of
 alternative publishing does it not?

  And as for 'Disruptive disinformation'.  Somehow I think even Orwell would have liked that phrase.
 Anything that upsets the ruling elite in society, be it the IM UK society (campaign against 'us') or
 society at large.

  Indeed all criticism of the IM UK position on racism and anti-semitism is now presumably 'disruptive
 disinformation'.  Only Chris Activix and friends have the right information!!

  You couldn't make it up.

  Tony Greenstein

Subject: Rizzo's Blindness

A repy from Tony Greenstein to a email from Chris about this wiki page:

From: tony greenstein <>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Rizzo's Blindness

Yes very good, but when are you going to draw the connections?  Rizzo and of course ftp can see nothing
 wrong with an article justifying the holocaust in terms of the 'unpopularity' of the victims.

  This whole petition is full of holocaust deniers such as Paul Eisen.  The fact that she made a 'mistake'
 over the Radical Press is symptomatic.  In fact so satiated is she by her immersion in an anti-semitic and
 racist environment that she has lost any ability to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
 What is sad is that Indymedia also appears to have lost its direction in that respect.

  You don't seem to understand that Indymedia UK is in a situation where it barely has a reputation to lose
 anymore.  You can blame 'tony greenstein' all you want, and I'm happy to accept the blame if it makes some
 people happy, but it was you who made the relevant decisions and it is for you to correct them.

  But the article was a good start nonetheless.

  Tony Greenstein

Subject: Intruding on Private Grief - Atzmon etc.

Yet another off-list email to people who's addresses Tony Greenstein took from the imc-uk-features list archive:

From: tony greenstein <>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:52:58 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Intruding on Private Grief - Atzmon etc.

One of the reasons I have to e-mail people individually is that there doesn't seem to
be any other way to engage people and that has been the same ever since the wiki
page going up.

I realise that I'm older than most (all?) people around IM but for those who might
remember the Miners Strike they will remember how Arthur Scargill was attacked by
the gutter press.  Why?  Because attacking individuals is easier than dealing with
the issues.  I've tried not to do this despite being called 'scumbag' etc. by ftp
because I realise where it's coming from.

Someone asks where the difference between Atzmon and myself lie in terms of
Palestine.  A great deal.  Atzmon sees the problem as 'Jewishness' I see it as
imperialism and colonialism.  I see the overthrow of Zionism as part and parcel of
the social struggles in the wider Middle East (for demographic reasons a South
Africa won't occur).  Atzmon has no critique of the wider Arab arena and the
repressive regimes in the region and how the US supports them.  Unsurprisingly since
Israel apparently controls the US!

People may see me as an 'enemy' of IM.  I suggest that it is the way that IM has
responded that has polarised this issue and prevented it being dealt with.  It was
not possible to engage politically with IM because you didn't have the mechanism to
do so.  I had every right to object to overtly anti-Semitic articles on IM.  If
people were to take a look you would see I have posted a number of articles to do
with the police attack on the Brighton Lebanon demo., employment rights etc.  I
recognise it is a valuable resource and my desire was that it didn't allow itself to
become the place of first resort for racist conspiracy theorists.

If someone searches for Atzmon, they'll find about 40 contributions.  Do they add
anything to the sum of human knowledge?  When someone says that they don't
understand much of them that is because they are, for the most part, undistinguished
waffle.  The fact that Atzmon's favourite philosopher (about whom he gave a talk to
the SWP) is Otto Weininger, of whom HItler said there was only 1 Jew and he killed
himself, should tell you volumes, not least the fact that he was a dedicated
mysoginist (woman hater).

You might also ask why an article on 'The Embarrassing Case of TG' by Atzmon is up
on IM.  It is a personal attack because I and others sought to exlude the openly
holocaust denial Deir Yassin Remembered group from Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

People might also ask why it is that I, who has been consistently attacked by
Zionists on virtually every campus I've spoken for 'anti-Semitism', nonetheless says
Atzmon is anti-Semitic.  I don't use the term lightly but when, e.g. the 'Esther to
Aipac' article on IM (which is much worse than the Hunters article incidentally and
should be deleted/hidden) speaks about anti-Zionist historians like Norman
Finkelstein and Lenni  Brenner not 'daring' to challenge revisionist, i.e. holocaust
denial historians, then that should ring some bells.  Does Atzmon believe there is a
valid debate to be had about whether the Nazis exterminated Jews, gays, gypsies,
sinta, the mentally & physically handicapped etc. etc.?  Atzmon does not debate the
lessons of the Holocaust he uses code words to challenge the very idea that it ever

If the article that is proposed goes up it will be universally panned for its
dishonesty.  I'm surprised that that is so difficult to see.  It does not address
the issues, eg

 i.   Why does IM not have a mechanism for dealing swiftly with articles that are
      overtly racist or chauvinist?

 ii.  Why was the person who objected to Atzmon's articles banned whilst he is
      subject to no such sanction?

 iii. Why has noone even had the courtesy to explain what the banning means.  Not
      being an expert in IM I don't have a clue as to whether, if I put up a post about
      the court case concerning assault at the Lebanon demo in Brighton 2 years ago, which
      I have initiated against the Police and is currently going to the Court of Appeal
      because the Police are seeking to exclude all evidence regarding their branding of
      the march as 'anti-Semitic', whether or not it will fall foul of the ban?  Ironic
      really since I stand to be bankrupted taking the Police to court over false
      allegations of anti-Semitism.  But that is the point.  The Zionists are happy to
      confuse false allegations of anti-Semitism with the real thing.  Those who support
      the Palestinians should do no such thing.

Unless the article says something about the original cause of what happened, i.e.
the articles that were posted by Atzmon, it will be seen as nothing more than an
exercise in self-justification and therefore self-serving.

And for the record, I don't see IM UK as 'the enemy' but rather a friend who's
fallen by the way!

Tony Greenstein

Before this email was sent Tony Greenstein said on another site:

Whether I am able to post to Indymedia myself is a matter of supreme indifference.

An anon email was sent to Tony Greenstein in reply to the claims that he didn't understand what being banned from email lists means...:

Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:35:18 +0000
To: tony greenstein <>
Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-contact] Intruding on Private Grief - Atzmon etc.


On Wed 20-Feb-2008 at 11:52:58PM +0000, tony greenstein
>   iii.  Why has noone even had the courtesy to explain
>   what the banning means.

It's just a ban from the lists, for abusing them, not from posting
articles or comments, in fact those you are campaigning against so much
spoke out against you being banned from posting articles to the site.

1 IMC'er of many

Subject: FTP's Seamless Racism (was Israel Shamir Defends Child Abuse - Atzmon Posts to Openly Holocaust Denial Sites)

A further off-list email sent to many people:

From: tony greenstein <>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:00:37 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: FTP's Seamless Racism (was Israel Shamir Defends Child Abuse - Atzmon Posts to Openly Holocaust Denial Sites)

I won't post this to the various racists privy to this correspondence but to various
IMCers, since they have to accept responsibility for where your politics have ended

I assume your comments below were in all seriousness.  How do Jewish groups define
themselves if not ethnic or racial is your question.

Is it not obvious that a group such as Anarchists Against the Wall, or The
Alternative Information Centre, or Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods etc. define
themselves politically?  Noone bar you and Atzmon are concerned as to how or even if
those involved define themselves as Jewish.  There is no shared cultural or other
history so there is no ethnicity and if you think that the common bond is racial,
then that simply reinforces what I've been saying about Atzmon's politics and yours
by default.

Of course if you reject any class analysis then what else are you left with but

Tony Greenstein

tony greenstein  wrote:


Now we're back onto your favourite obsession.

This is how you advertise meetings these days, isn't it?

Did you consult the speakers before including them in your obsessive campaign?

"They are NOT ethnic or racial Jews/Israelis."

"It is sponsored by a wide range of Jewish groups"

If the sponsoring groups aren't ethnic or racial, what are they?

Quoting tony greenstein :

> But my dear peeps I always bend over backward to be fair to people. It's
> called giving the benefit of the doubt.
> Tragic that Atzmon has withdrawn his articles from Indymedia. Quite how
> they manage to bear up given the loss of this major literary figure is quite
> beyond me.
> TG
> wrote:
> Evidence that you try to be fair to people, and that you aren't deluded?
> Quoting tony greenstein :
> We know exactly where you're coming from then.
> > wrote:
> > And that'll be evidence of your delusions......
> > 
> > Quoting tony greenstein :
> > 
> > I try my best to be fair to people,

On 11th February 2008 a petition for people to sign to "express... solidarity with Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo" and to "declare that he [Tony Greenstein] does not speak for us or in our names" was posted to indymedia two days after it appeared on Mary Rizzo's blog. The indymedia version of the petition contains this signatory:

The Radical Press, Canada 

The later versions on Mary Rizzo's site also include a hyperlink to this clearly racist site.

Mary's response to being alerted to the nature of the site was to keep the link and she justified it in some posts to another blog.

She pasted a letter she had written in support of the site almost a month before:

THIS is what I wrote in support of Radical Press: Jan 17, 2008

Dear Editor,

The issue of peace in the Middle East is far too important for anyone to attempt to think it can only be dealt with between other \x93more important\x94 issues such as sporting events and what Paris Hilton is doing these days. Yet, I do understand (as I am a journalist myself) that people do like to read things they already agree with that don\x92t challenge anything they think they already know, and especially, they don\x92t get encouraged to think out of the box.

At any rate, The Radical Press presents thought-provoking and intelligent information and analysis. It is absolutely NOT anti-Semitic, but many who might not agree with its harsh critique on Israel might try to label it as such, so that people will create confusion between the two, and things never change.

I hope you realise that it is a valuable resource, and any campaigning made to insinuate that it is a racist site is not at all accurate.

Mary Rizzo

Comment by thecutter \x97 10 February, 2008 @ 9:57 am

She further commented:

If we are talking about other sites, The Radical Press had come under pressure by some people who wanted it to be closed down. Knowing who most of these people are, it was easy enough for me to assume they were considering things in a way that was jaundiced. It was odd that it was Anti-Zionist Jews doing it, not Zionists\x85 This happens far too often for me to believe it is simply accidental. The Radical Press explained to me that they were an anti-Zionist site and that they were dedicated to the Palestinian cause. So, I went to the site, took a look, not deeply, basically into a few issues on Palestine that were good, because I don\x92t have all the time Tony, andy and Goodwin have, and it looked fine to me. I am not responsible for the content they have, nor am I their editor. I am another blogger and I defend the rights of bloggers dedicated to the Palestinian cause to do what they do, who come under attack far too often. If they are being forced to change because of pressure, I will defend them to NOT have to endure pressure. I don\x92t see Tony running around to close ZIONIST blogs and sites, not in the slightest, so I am not going to campaign to have Pro-Palestinian ones shut down. Each blog or site is the image of the creator, not the reader, so I believe that if we value the fact that creators select material that they wish, this is their right. Why should I feel ashamed to defend an editor in a site? I can\x92t vouch for the entire site, and why should I? Who am I, the thought police? I can find Brother Kapner\x92s article a total piece of shite, and it probably is, but I am not about to waste time to investigate every article on Jews, nor read them because someone wants me to express some opinion. It simply is not that interesting to me. I look at the value of a site in how they are able to express the Palestinian cause as being the result of Zionism and of the lack of awareness as to what Zionism is. I am not going to delve into the rest, because my time is limited.

Comment by thecutter \x97 12 February, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

And on the same thread she later said:

Hey, you want me to denounce a site I came into contact with a few weeks ago? The site owner was directed to me by someone who told me that the site was receiving heavy threats from someone like (probably) Goodman. The webmaster, who is not even the author of the piece wrote me telling me they were a site that was anti-Zionist and defended Palestinian rights. I am not anyone\x92s judge, just like no one is mine, but I went in, the home page looked ok, I clicked on the articles that interested me, and I found them of value. What more can I say.

In fact, now you can dance around claiming victory because I tell you I didn\x92t read the whole site and my views were expressed on the articles that are relevant to Zionism and Israel, which is what I am interested in. If there are things that are questionable, I regret that I defended a site I do not know like the pockets of my jeans, knowing that anything and everything will be used by those trying to attack me who have nothing to do all day but plug my name in on Google. It is tiring being stalked guys, you can stop now, unless you think this is political activism. I think it is sick in the head and deranged. I however am not going to grovel for you, and I\x92m not going to denounce any sites, not even this \x93sewer\x94!!! Let it be! I mean, what the hell, we are in a free world where people can write what they want and others comment as they feel. Or aren\x92t we?

Comment by thecutter \x97 12 February, 2008 @ 10:42 pm

On 14th February Mary Rizzo removed the link to The Radical Press and in addition removed her link to a site run by David Duke, however this signatory remains:

Wendy Campbell, California, USA, MarWen Media,

She is the author of a dire article titled 9-11 Truth and The Holocaust which is on The Radical Press site:
Topic revision: r23 - 24 Feb 2008, ChrisC
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback