Attn., "Leninology, " http://bannedbyelf.blogspot.com/
The Muslim Council of Britain has put together a joint response, in concert with its favoured "Muslim groups, scholars and leaders": including the extreme right wing group Hizb ut-Tahrir, the post-MAB "Kaboom" Tamimi vehicle, the British Muslim Initiative, the Muslim Brotherhood youth movement, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, and the pro-Khomenist Islamic Human Rights Commission.
Read the rest on Harry's Place. http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=719
On Lenni Brenner, http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=720
>...There are numerous errors and distortions in that book, Steve Cohen's own book on antisemitism
( http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/
Writing as a Jewish traitor - An imagined disputation with my comrades on anti Semitism - Steve Cohen Added by David Hirsh on October 25, 2006 03:46:02 PM. Writing as a Jewish traitor - An imagined disputation with my comrades on anti Semitism - Steve Cohen
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=718 For forty five years as a Jew and a revolutionary Marxist I have been waiting for this debate, this disputation. The time lag it itself revealing – revealing of the Left's refusal to get beyond platitudes, often nasty platitudes, in discussing Jews. Let me say what this is not about. It is not about Zionism. Rather it is about the anti-Zionism of fools. And it is about the anti-imperialism of fools. I speak as an anti-imperialist. Over a century ago August Bebel, the German Marxist, coined the phrase "the socialism of fools" to describe those early socialists who equated world capitalism and world Jewry. In my view much modern anti-Zionism contains caricatures and myths which are equally foolish and equally dangerous. They are both a slur on Jews, all Jews, and do nothing whatsoever to advance the absolutely justifiable struggle of the Palestinians to become free of Israeli hegemony. And yes I think anti-Zionism and anti-semitism should be conceptually and politically kept absolutely apart. However it is the result of the dominant discourse on the modern left that they have crashed into each other and joined up. This discourse is joined up anti-politics at its most grotesque. )
was published by a small publishing collective that also published Gill Seidel's "The Holocaust Denial, Antisemitism, Racism & the New right". Seidel had a section about Brenner and she was not that impressed. She said at one point:
Brenner does not deny the Holocaust, or seek to minimise it…. Rather, on the basis of skewed and irresponsible interpretations of particular documents… he claims that the Zionist movement in general not only collaborated with the Nazis, as if that allegation were not disturbing enough, but that Zionism and Nazism are entirely congruent; and that Zionism, by implication, bears responsibility for the Holocaust.
Brenner's work has been so discredited that even some of the ant-Zionist left are stepping away from it. Even the Socialist Workers Party activist and self declared "Trotsky supporting, anti-Zionist veteran", John Rose in his book "The Myths of Zionism" criticized Brenner. He commented that "it is very foolish to draw the conclusion that 'Zionist collaboration with the Nazis' was typical or somehow automatically built into the Zionist project, an interpretation that which could be put on the subtitle of Brenner's 51 Documents book". Rose went on to admit "Zionism was perfectly capable of inspiring resistance to the Nazis, as 'Antek' Zuckermann, makes clear in his massive autobiography, A Surplus of Memory".
Cohen might be better off re-reading Seidel's book before believing "every dot and comma" from Brenner.
Cohen argues that the Judenrat (Jewish Council) were "betrayers". As Martin Gilbert States:
Most Jewish Councils were themselves murdered, often before the rest of the community was deported and killed. To give one, alas typical, example of the fate of a Council leader: The head of the Jewish Council of Zamosc was deported with the community, reaching the death camp at Belzec on 15 November 1942. An eye-witness recalled: "They put the leader of the Jewish Council against a wall and started to beat him about the head and face with whips. Those who tortured him were Irrmann – a fat Gestapo man – Schwartz, Schmidt and some of the Ukrainian guards. Their victim was ordered to dance and jump around to music while being beaten. After some hours he was given a quarter a loaf of bread and made to eat it – while still being beaten. He stood there, covered in blood, indifferent, very calm. I did not hear him even groan once. His torment lasted for seven hours. The S.S. men stood there and laughed, 'here is a grand personage, the President of the Jewish Council!' They shouted loudly and wickedly. It was six o'clock in the evening when Gestapo man Schmidt pushed him towards a grave, shot him in the head and kicked the body on to the pile of gassed victims..."
[T]he majority of Jewish Councils were involved in a four-year-long struggle to preserve Jewish communal life, to promote escape, and to gather such strength as was possible for resistance. Many council leaders committed suicide rather than carry out S.S. orders. Many other Council members were murdered by the S.S. for refusing to carry out orders.
Hundreds of acts of defiance and revolt were organised by Jewish Councils. Take, for example, a seven day period in May 1942. On May 1, in Bilgoraj, the Jewish Council was ordered to compile a list of candidates for deportation. The Vice-Chairman of the Council, Hillel Janova, and three other members of the Council refused to do so. All four were shot dead on May 3. Two days later, in Dabrowa, the Chairman of the Jewish Council, Adolf Weinberg, refused to deliver a list of so called 'resettlement' candidates, or to reveal where those threatened with deportation were hiding. He and his entire family were deported to their deaths. At Markusow, on May 7, the Jewish Council warned the Jews of the village of an impending 'action' and advised the community that 'every Jew who is able to save himself should do so'. At Szczebzeszyn, a Council member, Hersh Getzel Hoichbaum, on learning that none of those sent away for 'resettlement' were ever heard of again, told his Council colleagues that he did not wish to be the despatcher [sic] of fellow Jews to their deaths, and hanged himself in his attic. At Iwje, two council members, Shalom Zak and Bezalel Milkowski, were among those selected by the Germans not to be deported. They at once insisted on joining the deportees, and were killed, together with their families and 2,500 other Jews, on May 8.
Cohen makes a specific comment about Adam Czerniakow. He states "I can give as yet another grotesque example Adam Czerniakow, President of the Association of Jewish Artisans, who headed the Warsaw Judenrat". Cohen does not specifically state what Czerniakow did. Had he bothered, I hope he would have had at least checked a biography, for example this one, and noted that "He [ Czerniakow ] refused to sign the posters announcing the forced deportation of Jews-which in effect meant that they would simply be transported to death camps. The day before the deportation to the Treblinka death camp was to begin, July 23, 1942, he committed suicide". Someone that committed suicide rather than forcing people to their deaths hardly seems like a "grotesque" person.
Cohen states that Kasztner did a "deal" with Eichmann. This is a classic distortion. The matter reached the Supreme Court in Israel and the 4:1 majority decision was that Kasztner did not collaborate. Justice Agranat who wrote the main opinion for the majority explained in a "deal" you need some measure of free will between both parties. He commented on the words Eichmann had said to Kasztner: "You seem extremely tense, Kasztner. I am sending you to Teresienstadt for recovery; or would you prefer Auschwitz?". Agranat explained that Kasztner was under the control of the Gestapo, who subjected him to abuse and even imprisoned him on occasions and therefore Kasztner could not possibly feel like an equal partner in the negotiations. The final opinion of Agranat in a judgment of 109 pages on Kasztner was "one cannot find a moral fault in his behaviour, one cannot discover a casual connection between it and the easing of the concentration and deportation, one cannot see it as becoming a collaboration with the Nazis". It would have been helpful if Cohen had mentioned some of this.
Cohen comments that the Kasztner case was "central to Jim Allen's play Perdition". He is correct on that point, but fails to mention that the play was widely criticised for inaccuracies and antisemitism and that the Royal Court Theatre that was due to show it in 1987 decided to pull it as they lost confidence in the play. He also comments that people should read "Perfidy" by Ben Hecht. This book also was widely criticised for inaccuracies and distortions and is not taken seriously by historians. The book was basically a party political pamphlet for Herut against Mapai in Israel and gives a very one sided view of the Kasztner case. Hecht even mentions that it is one sided in his book – On page 2 of "Perfidy" Hecht states "For though I write a history I am not a historian; that is if an historian is a man full of facts and with an objective attitude. Facts I have, but I am not objective". If someone does wish to understand Kasztner then I can recommend any of the following books. Randolph Braham's detailed account of "The Politics of Genocide - the Holocaust in Hungary", Yehuda Bauer's "Jews for Sale? – Nazi-Jewish Negotiations 1933-1945", and Szabolcs Szita's "Trading in Lives? Operations of the Jewish Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, 1944-1945". All of these books give a far more scholarly and accurate account of the Kaztner affair than the ideologically motivated travesties of Brenner, Allen and Hecht that Cohen mentions.
Cohen states "The fact that the Revisionists would not have hesitated to have attacked/imprisoned/ murdered those of us taking place in this disputation is irrelevant to the present argument.". Personally, I am no fan of the Revisionists, but I have no idea where Cohen gets information to write that sentence from. It is so erroneous that the sentence is farcical. I would be interested to know what possessed Cohen to make such a claim?
Cohen refers to the Board of Deputies of British Jews as "self-proclaimed" without mentioning that they are an elected body. Cohen argues their role is to "to control and depoliticise the community". That is news to me. I have yet to see a memorandum come through from the Board of Deputies telling Jews not to get involved in politics. In fact I would guess that the opposite would be the case – they would like Jews to get involved in politics. Greville Janner (now Lord Janner), a past President of the Board of Deputies was even a Member of Parliament for many years, so I fail to see how or why the Board would want to "depoliticise the community". Where he gets the idea that the Board's role is to "control" Jews is beyond me. I would be very interested to see a source for this nonsense. However as for Cohen, the Board is comprised of "Quislings" acting in the interests of the British State, I suppose I should not be so surprised.
Cohen informs us that he can "no longer see any point in being Jewish". He wants to "become unJewish - a person of the world". It is as if for Cohen that being Jewish and being a person of the world are mutually exclusive. He does not explain why that is the case. We are left to guess. I have tried to guess why and have failed miserably. For Cohen being Jewish is something of a burden – He wants to "bounce higher and higher" and free himself from the shackles that his Jewish identity beholds him to. He thinks everyone should do it. He wants no religion – The Jewish religion has only been going 5,767 years and still thrives, but Cohen has read Karl Marx, whose words for him are like words spoken directly from God and as a follower of this new religion of Marxism, Cohen comes up with a solution!
And what is the solution to all this for Cohen – "a federated Socialist Middle East". And how is this to be achieved? Well Cohen calls himself "a revolutionary Marxist". So he wants a revolution – Presumably therefore Cohen does not believe in democracy ("There is no parliamentary road to socialism" and all that Marxist/Leninist stuff). But for Cohen he admits that it would require "the unity of Palestinian/Jewish workers". Before we look at places far away in the Middle East – Let us look closer to home – in the UK. Given that the revolutionary Marxists here can not even have "political unity" that he so requires – you only have to look at the far left groupings here – The Socialist Workers Party, Workers Power, Workers Fight, Alliance for Workers Liberty, Socialist Action etc etc etc to realize that not even those that call themselves Revolutionary Marxists in the UK can agree on political unity, let alone all the workers in the UK. When the far left in the UK can sort themselves out, agree a common political programme, build a workers' party and take control of the Government via the revolution they hope to have, then maybe they might be in a position to comment on what those in the Middle East should do. And that is my message to Steve Cohen – Come back after the revolution and we will discuss it.