Derek Wall, Joel Kovel And The Green Party.

I have been following the subject of racism in the Green Party for some time, yet even I am surprised about this, Greens Engage has a piece on Derek Wall, a very senior Green figure:

“Since then he has busied himself “negating the various threads of [his] Jewish identity” (p7). You’ll come across similar books by ex-Muslims writing against existing Muslims, denying their diversity, saying “Trust me, I know these people – they’re all authoritarian chauvinists”. It is obviously wrong to make an association between what goes on in your family and what a group of people joined by religion or ethnicity do throughout the world. Joel Kovel is quite openly an antisemitic kook, and anybody who doesn’t realise that has their own prejudices to deal with.

Unfortunately Derek Wall feels so secure within the current anti-Zionist-anti-Jewish climate that to a recent commenter who raised concerns about antisemitism, the green activist, writer and economist responded simply and confidently:

“fuck off Zionist twat.“

That is unrecognisable as politics. It is simply hateful.”

[My emphasis.]

Exactly, hateful.

Surprising, as Wall is an educated man, a tutor at a private college and normally exceedingly well spoken.

Still, I suppose “some of his best friends are….”, no doubt he will say that soon enough.

Update 1: This is Mudar Zahran’s piece, well worth a read:

“Anti-Semitism and the image of the “evil Jew” find their roots deep in Europe’s intellectualism, from Shakespeare to Nietzsche, not to mention the fraudulent Franco-Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The pretexts for Hitler’s Nazi ideology existed vigorously before he came to power. Hitler probably manifested more of a crude exposure of a public trend, exacerbated by a terrible economy, except that the suffering Hitler brought to the world was not limited to Jews. It took the destruction of entire nations and the deaths of millions for people to realize that racism and extremism can be as dangerous to the oppressors and the haters as it is the oppressed and the hated.

As a result, European societies of today collectively renounce racism and anti-Semitism, but even though the haters encountered rejection and exclusion, they were nonetheless able to find an alternative pathway by prospering on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As it has raged — and continues to rage — for sixty years, the global media have found a lively source of news material that is endlessly interesting as a conflict between “two religions,” “two ethnicities,” and the line between the West, represented by Israel, and the East, represented by the Palestinians and Arabs in general. “

Update 2: Seemingly Dr. Wall’s political judgement has failed him for a number of years, he’s been an advocate of Cynthia McKinney for ages.

Readers will remember Ms. McKinney’s drift rightwards and association with some well known anti-Jewish racists, David Pidcock and Lady Renouf.

Adam Holland has documented Ms. McKinney’s decline:

Cynthia McKinney Interviewed on Far-Right Racist Radio Program

Cynthia McKinney increasing her ties to the racist far-right: Michael Collins Piper and Israel Shamir.

Cynthia McKinney and the Society of Supporters of the Green Book.

Update 3: Here is Ms. McKinney publishing Israel Shamir’s filth, courtesy of the American Green Party, I am in Turkey with Isreal Shamir. Anyone care to speculate what the shared connection between these people is?

The Greens, Entryism And Shouting Contests.

Sometimes issues on the Internet take on a life of their own. A few weeks back I dropped a comment on the Daily (Maybe), a very popular Green Party blog.

I didn’t see eye to eye with my host, Jim, and left it at that.

Readers will remember I have been following the issue of the Green Party and anti-Jewish racism for sometime.

Then suddenly I get follow-up emails from that thread, which springs to life as if shot by a bolt of lightning.

Sadly, the resultant exchanges shed no light on the issue of the Green Party and antisemitism, but they do tell you something about the characters involved.

One particular vigorous figure is Deborah Fink.

Ms. Fink is a comparatively new convert to all things green, which normally wouldn’t be a problem except she has brought along her past political baggage.

Ms. Fink was a once prominent member of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, that was until she made a statement that:

“Israel does not deserve to be called ‘The Jewish state.’ It should be called ‘The Satanic state.’ I really don’t see the point [of] doing anything else other than boycott it in every possible way.”

JfJfP didn’t like it too much either:

“But Dan Judelson, elected last month as JfJfP chair, told the JC that Ms Fink’s remarks were “incompatible” with her responsibilities within the group — which include the role of recruitment officer.

The matter would be discussed at its monthly meeting on Sunday.

“Deborah Fink is not a member of the newly elected executive committee of JfJfP,” he stated. “As such, she speaks only for herself.” He said she had confirmed that she had posted the remarks online.”

All of that is moderate, compared to her attacks on other Greens in the comment thread at the Daily (Maybe):

“Actually Alan, I have not put a complaint in against you, so don’t like, but I am now considering it. Someone else was going to put in a complaint against you but I don’t know if s/he has done so yet or how far it has progressed.”

She makes a veiled threat to the blog’s host, Jim:

“What worries me most about this, is that Jim is a member of the executive. Time for him to step down, I think.”

From the thread we learn that Ms. Fink joined the Greens on a “whim” and states openly “My main issue is Palestine…”.

She attacks long standing Greens in an aggressive fashion, only having been a Green, herself, since early 2010.

Additionally, you can see Ms. Fink bad mouthing the Green Party and its members on a public bulletin board, JustPeaceUK :

“Basically, a handful of members, otherwise known as Greens engage, had complained about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the party, so to try and address their concerns, a working group was set up. This was before I joined. I’m not quite sure why the committee was disbanded but i think it was because Greens engage kept calling one member anti-Semitic. i can imagine that they weren’t getting anywhere.
…
From what I heard, Greens engage used to bully people on email lists into
silence on Israel/Palestine, by constantly accusing them of anti-Semitism, but that this all stopped once I joined the party! O yes, they’ve had a taste of their own medicine! They won’t dare argue with me. I’ve been exposing their arguments and agenda so that others won’t get taken in by them, and saying what non Jews on the lists would liked to have said, but didn’t dare.

So, this article is mostly nonsense and actually, they had no business publishing it when it wasn’t from official sources. I didn’t respond as i did not want to blow the whole thing up. “

She seems to do a bit of plotting too:

“I discussed this with them and the possibility of my writing in ‘As-a-Jew’ but we decided it was best to leave it– a response would have drawn more attention to it and possibly escalated it. However, I’m looking into taking action against these infiltrators. They’ve all gone quiet now, by the way…”

Ms. Fink’s divisive attitudes brought the JfJfP into disrepute and she left, so all in all it is not very promising for the Greens, if she doesn’t get her way she’ll probably leave as quickly as she joined, on a whim.

Small wonder Toby Green resigned.

The Green Party Conference And Racism.

Weggis asks some difficult questions of his own party:

“The situation is quite simple: anyone who raises the issue of anti-Semitism within the party is immediately labeled a “Zio” or an “apologist for Israel” and accused of trying to stifle criticism of Israel. The fact that these people are also critics of Israel and empathise with the Palestinian cause does not register on their barometer. They are blind to any evidence that contradicts their obsession. Debate, or rational discourse, has become a pointless and futile exercise.

If the Green Party cannot see, understand or deal with it’s own problems what chance have they of resolving anybody else’s? “

This post might help explain the background to the issues, Institutionalised Antisemitism In The Green Party, A Longstanding Member Resigns.

Institutionalised Antisemitism In The Green Party, A Longstanding Member Resigns.

Bob has a tremendously hard-hitting guest post by Toby Green.

Green had a 10-year membership of the Green Party in England and Wales but has resigned over its institutionalised antisemitism.

Green is exceedingly knowledgeable on this topic, as he was the chair of a working group within the Green Party to draw up a policy on antisemitism.

Readers will remember how political manoeuvrings within the Greens killed off that comprehensive policy statement against antisemitism.

Some of his points are arguable, but they are legitimate positions to hold and he has considerable experience of the internal workings of the Greens. It is a fascinating post.

I particularly liked these parts:

“To be fair, after all of this, the party did recognise that there was an issue. A report commissioned by the Green Party Regional Council (GPRC – a powerful decision-making body in the decentralisd power structure of the party), and written by two non-Jewish members, said that these were examples of a toleration of low-level anti-semitism, and that therefore a working party on anti-semitism was recommended to be established. Although kicked into the long grass at first, it started work when a senior figure recommended an article by a known holocaust denier on his blog. But the working party was quickly an impossibility. I should know: I was the chair, a position I only adopted when no one else was prepared to. Replies to very calm, polite emails asking for input came there none. Ever. Weeks would go by without any discussion, and if I as chair then asked for input this was always slack. One member only ever sent one email to the group. Eventually, a crisis came when a new GP member posted emails to a list confirming that the epithet of “squealing zionist” was justified. Since this was one of the phrases criticised in the original report to the GPRC, I brought this to the attention of the group – at which point one member resigned.
…
Far from it. After four years of this charade, it has become clear that the Green Party is institutionally anti-semitic. Its institutions have not dealt with clear evidence of anti-semitism. They show no evidence of wanting to, and indeed now seem to have decided to target perceived “problem” members of the party who have raised this issue. This is fundamentally a political decision: the Green party has decided that it is increasingly a hard left party, allied with enemies of Western capitalism. Rightly, it thinks that Islamophobia is one of the more dangerous phenomena to have arisen since 9/11, and in reaction against this it turns a blind eye to discrimination against perceived enemies of Islamic peoples, Israel, and the Jews. This is a classic case of projection: horrified at their own government´s attitudes towards Islamic countries, and wanting no part in it, this mentality projects this violence onto a scapegoat – Israel and Jews. “

Update 1: Some of these previous posts might shed some light on this dark and murky issue.

Green Party’s Regional Council.

Smoke-filled Rooms, Antisemitism and The Greens.

The Greens And Racism.

At Engage, Antisemitism in the Green Party ‘best kept under the surface’

Green Party’s Regional Council

After the shenanigans at the GPRC, where an agreed policy statement on antisemitism was shelved after some political manoeuvrings, questions are being asked about who are the GPRC at Greens’ Engage:

“GPRC is responsible for policing the democratic structures of the Green Party and ensuring the Party’s “well being”. The Party’s executive (GPEx) is responsible to the GPRC. Members of the Green Party Executive (GPEx) can be required to report to GPRC, which has the right to recall (suspend) GPEx members, including party Leader and Co-Leader. GPRC has responsibility for policy between conferences, and the enforcement of party procedures. GPRC can review local party decisions, and overturn them, in the event of a complaint. GPRC also plays in a key role in determining the strategic priorities of the Party.

The GPRC, and in particular its co-chairs, have a key role in handling disputes and complaints raised by regional parties, individual party members and member of the public. The GPRC co-chairs can summarily dismiss a complaint, refer it to dispute resolution, or initiate a full-blown tribunal. They can suspend a party member pending a tribunal, and initiate investigations into members behaviour. It may be the case that they are a clique suffering from a bad case of groupthink. But to say GPRC is irrelevant in the Green Party is akin to saying that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, and the judicial system, are all irrelevant cliques that can be ignored by those concerned with democracy and justice.

GPRC’s constitutional role means that the fiasco over guidelines concerning antisemitism is important and not merely a trivial side-show. The GPRC has previously agreed that there is a specific problem with antisemitism in the Green Party, which requires action on its part, including specific guidance to be considered when dealing with complaints relating to antisemitism.”

I thought this seemed to sum it up nicely:

“To a cynical onlooker it might seem that the entire process for producing guidance on antisemitism was set up to fail, perhaps so that GPRC could wash its hands of a problem that they acknowledge exists but cannot or will not act on. Perhaps one question is whether GPRC is seeking “merely” to appease certain individuals and groups to avoid confrontation and embarrassment, or whether those individuals and groups are de facto in charge of the institutions of the party. “

Smoke-filled Rooms, Antisemitism and The Greens.

Years back students of history or politics will remember how the term, smoke-filled rooms was coined.

It meant how political decision-making was conducted behind closed doors, where Joe (or Josephine) Public were excluded, whilst political wheelers and dealers decided things.

It is something that newer political parties try to argue that they are against.

They try to argue that they represent a new form of politics, more transparent, more open, involving people, ordinary people, not just politicos in (non-smoke-filled) rooms deciding what is what, or as one political leader put it:

“[We have] promoted a new style of politics emphasising transparency,accountability and consensual ways of working…”

That’s what such parties would have you believe, but the reality is more prosaic. This is ably illustrated by the Green Party’s discussions on antisemitism.

Within the past few weeks a Green Party decision-making committee has decided that there should be no Green Party policy on antisemitism.

That is despite a Green Party conference decision to implement one.

A policy paper was even drawn up, it was not perfect, but a good start and it at least showed that the Green Party was serious about antisemitism.

Then, it was withdrawn for “corrections”, or some such nonsense.

Whilst in the background those opposed, to any firm Green party policy on antisemitism, worked their manoeuvres emulating those smoke-filled rooms of old.

Low and behold in January 2011, when the topic came up again it was decided to shelve any concrete policy on antisemitism by the Greens.

Which I suppose shows that politics rarely ever changes, in spite of all the fine words.

It also means that the Greens will have to work very hard to convince non-members that they are serious about anti-racism and their opposition to antisemitism.

We’ve been here before. Hugh Muir was right first time out.

Update 1: The issue of antisemitism has some history in and around the Green party so it’s helpful to remember some of the previous posts:

The Green Party and antisemitism – Eve Garrard

Isca Stieglitz: Green Party and anti-semitism?

On the connection between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism

Update 2: Not all Greens are happy with this situation, as one points out at the Daily (Maybe):

“We now have a situation where GPRC have officially accepted that there is a problem but have resolved to do absolutely eff all about it.”

The Greens And Racism.

The Greens and many of the other new parties would have us believe that they represent a new type of politics, different from the shenanigans, backroom deals and manoeuvring that is often found in mainstream politics.

That might well be so, on some issues and elsewhere in local councils they say:

“Green councillors want to inspire a new culture of increased openness at city hall. Our local election manifesto included a whole range of ideas from improving the way decisions are scrutinised to publishing more information about the council and its activities.”

However, when it comes to the Green’s own debate on anti-Jewish racism trying to get a straight answer from Greens is nearly impossible.

Sure enough they answer, but only in the most obtuse of ways.

Their replies owe more to old-fashioned politicking in the House of Commons than any new form of transparency or desire to openly debate these difficult issues.

This all came about in the wake of the Green Party’s conference and a small piece in the Guardian, by Hugh Muir:

“And some year for the Green party as members meet in Birmingham for the annual conference. The party, still bright and relatively new, has yet to succumb to the dead hand of sophistry and spin. And yet they realise that some things are best kept under the surface. One such is the claim that too often a sympathy for the plight of Palestinians spills over into full-blown antisemitism. These claims have been made before. That’s why the party sought to address them by setting up an antisemitism working group. But good intentions, we understand, were not enough, and thus it apparently became necessary to remove the chair and disband the committee. We have a problem, say worried members. No we don’t, says the leadership; and if we do we’ll deal with it. It’s under the surface for now but bubbling up fast.”

I have asked a couple of leading Greens to comment, but to date I have not received any satisfactory reply, nothing to clarity the situation.

Peter Cranie seem to have a bout of political laryngitis on this topic.

I got two replies from Jim Jepps, after a bit of pestering:

1. “The short answer is that I think there is a problem.

Although I don’t think it is institutional anti-semitism in the party I do think we have a constant failure in the way we deal with disputes or handle individuals who do inappropriate things.

That failure to intervene firmly enough (or at all) can lead to a small group of people or single individuals making discussions or lists poisonous – and I know many people leave those lists because they don’t reflect the friendly and useful Green Party they know in their local area.

I think the people making a complaint have a point that is worth replying to and we should try to address their concerns. Although I should say I don’t 100% agree with them on the detail and definition I think it would be an error for the party to dismis this out of hand.

I’ll try to make a more thoughtful comment on this later, but thought a quick response might be useful to getting on with.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010 10:15:00 AM”

2. “Mod: I can answer that now. Thw working group was disbanded because certain members of it came to the group with such a dogmatic and rigid position that it was unable to function meaningfully.

It was replaced by a two person group who are submitting a report soon I believe. I’ll get to read this report when it comes out and am ‘looking forward to it’ if that is the right phrase.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:24:00 PM”

All rather opaque, worth of Sir Humphrey.

So there is a distinct unwillingness by the Greens to provide clarification on this important issue.

I suppose it’s understandable, like mainstream political parties, they don’t like washing their political laundry in public, but then again there is nothing new or radical in that approach, it is the politics of the old school.

Unfortunately for the Greens the issue of anti-Jewish racism will not go away, until the Greens go beyond rhetoric and the political tactics of the past then it will come back to haunt them.

What we are seeing from the Greens is the same old obfuscation that politicos are so fond of, remember the expenses scandal?

Here’s Engage’s discussion of the topic.

[Just to be perfectly clear, that I am not accusing the Greens of racism. I am not accusing them of racism.

Instead, it seems to me, that they display a recognizable lack of transparency, and if they can’t openly discuss the issues of racism then what can they discuss in a meaningful manner?]

Update 1: Despite my best endeavours and the aid of Google I have been unable to find anything of significance on the Green Party’s autumn conference 2010.

There is plenty of information going back to 2007 and 2005, etc but nothing as far as I can see freely available on the Web which openly discusses what went on at the Greens’ conference from an objective point of view.

Sure enough there is plenty of PR and speeches from leaders, but not much critical comment or an interrogation of events, which sounds to me like political parties from 40+ years ago, as if the Web didn’t exist.

If anyone finds a good summary on this issue, please let me know.

Update 2: Peter Cranie has replied and I appreciate he’s rather busy, so we might hear something in a few days or so, which is fair enough.

The Curious Case Of Rupert And Gilad.

I have been waiting for Dr Rupert Read to comment on his blog without success, and I am not sure quite what to make of Dr Read’s recent conduct. I could, of course, be very critical, it is hard to see how anyone could read the racism embedded in Gilad Atzmon’s work and not be alarmed.

But Dr Read did apologise, he said sorry, which should be an end to it, and it would be, if he hadn’t compounded the problem by making some quite curious and absurd claims afterwards :

Dr. Read: “I think that the influence of ‘the Israel lobby’ in this country as in many others is nefarious.” [My emphasis.]

Nefarious, readers will remember is defined in Webster’s 1913 edition as:

”Wicked in the extreme; abominable; iniquitous; atrociously, villainous; execrable; detestably vile. ”

Further, Dr. Read went on to praise the recent Dispatches programme which has received questionable reviews, still more disappointing is Dr. Read’s inability to explain himself in a lucid and considered fashion.

Normally, we should try to be charitable to those caught up in these mistakes and if they make amends quickly then that should be it. However, from his comments Dr Read doesn’t appear to have learnt anything in the process, anything meaningful. He might well have learnt to be more careful or hide his opinion’s concerning “Israelis”, he might have learnt how to give out a quick apology. Yet it all comes over as rather unsatisfactory.

Unsatisfactory coming from a professional academic, who is one step away from a professorship, someone who in normal circumstances would be considered a critical thinker, an intellectual, someone who could balance in his head numerous arguments and counter arguments in a trice, except that is not what comes over in his statements on this topic.

This is the difficulty, imagine you know someone highly intelligent, articulate and otherwise well balanced yet they hold a strong negative opinion against a particular group of people, and are incapable of articulating why they hold such an opinion in a rational fashion.

In such circumstances the natural conclusion to draw, is not that their views are based on reason, but some bias or prejudice. Let me make it clear I am not accusing Dr. Read of being an antisemite or anywhere close, but his inability to look at these issues rationally and objectively is somewhat mystifying and rather inadequate.

I know the simple answer would be to assume prejudice on Dr. Read’s part, but I am not entirely convinced as I have run across many politicos and a few academics, who were loath to ever admit they were wrong, could not rethink their positions and often showed a striking lack of self-awareness, the recent British MPs’ expenses scandals showed that.

The same could be true for Dr Read’s attitude, that it is more of a character flaw than an active prejudice? I am not really sure. Either way it is rather peculiar that a professional philosopher cannot defend his own views, strongly held views, by clear-cut and comprehensive argumentation.

Green Rupert And The Anti-Jewish Racist.

Thanks to Greens Engage, we now find out that Rupert Read is pushing that well-known anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon.

Dr. Read was a perspective Parliamentary candidate for the Greens in Norwich North, and a rather shrewd individual, well-educated, articulate and even has a column on the Eastern Daily Press. To top it all he’s an author and academic.

Dr. Read on his Twitter account pushes a link to Atzmon’s site with the title “Britain must de-Zionise Itself Immediately” [I’ll upload a screen dump of it later on, just in case it vanishes]

Astute readers will remember the SWP’s honeymoon with Atzmon and their weak defence of him, that was some time ago and nowadays few, if any, deny Atzmon’s racism.

One example of Atzmon’s racism is how he argues that Jews fund war and revolutions, and anyone competent enough to read Far Right and neo-Nazi web sites will remember that old racist chestnut.

More recently Atzmon was portraying Israelis and Jews as ghouls and traders in body parts.

None of this should come as a surprise to Dr Read, a simple search across the Internet would reveal the racist nature of Atzmon’s views. Even Wikipedia, which apparently tries to strike a neutral balance, acknowledges there is criticism of Atzmon’s views.

Merely substituting “Zionist” for “Jew” should not fool a sophisticate such as Dr. Read, I am sure he is familiar with the usage of euphemisms in racism, he’ll find a lot of that in Atzmon’s work.

I think Dr. Read’s support for Atzmon illustrates a long standing problem, that those who spend an inordinate amount of time swimming around in the currents of “anti-Zionism” often become desensitised towards anti-Jewish racism, and when it is staring them in the face, as with Atzmon’s filth, they can’t recognise it.

I do hope that Dr. Read will admit his mistake and take a training course on basic racism: how to recognise it.

Update 1: As promised the screen dump from Dr. Read’s twitter:

Update 2: Dr. Read after making an apology on Engage and Greens Engage compounded the problem by stating “I think that the influence of ‘the Israel lobby’ in this country as in many others is nefarious. “ [My emphasis].

Sadly, I don’t think Dr. Read has fully understood the anti-Jewish racism embedded in the sentiment that he articulated.

Update 3: Dr. Read has updated his blog, but without a mention or a moment’s regret on this issue. I will assume that he pre-wrote that last entry on Friday and hope that he’ll deal with this issue and his notion of “nefarious” in a post shortly.

Update 4: Mira Vogel made this excellent contribution. it helps explain Dr. Read’s and others misconceptions:

“Rupert, it has already been pointed out to you several times that Atzmon conflates Jews and Zionists. So when he calls for de-Zionisation, the clear implication is de-Jewification.

“he is of course Jewish which makes it hard for him to be anti-Jewish anyway”.

He calls himself an ex-Jew, Rupert. He hates Jews.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559

Of course you can be Jewish and antisemitic. You can be gay and homophobic. You can call it the internalisation of oppression – you can call it what you like – it is not unusual. Example from a recent episode of Andrew Marr’s ‘The Making of Modern Britain’ – the way some British women joined in with attacks on the British women campaigning for the franchise.

Please do the right thing and write a further self-appraisal in which you reflect upon how antipathy against Zionism (as opposed to lucid criticism) can prejudice anti-Zionists and corner them with antisemitic thinkers. We will make sure it is the last thing people see on this post. It will of course be subject to criticism (analysis, I mean), but if it’s good it will draw a line under this episode.”

[My emphasis]

Update 5: Dr. Read has replied at Engage and Greens Engage, neither of which seems fully satisfactory to me:

“Rupert Read Says:

November 21, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Look, we obviously disagree about quite a few things. E.g. Several of you seem to think that Oborne’s documentary was wrong or biassed or dangerous. I disagree; I think it was brilliant.
Parts of the Atzmon post just rehash in a provocative way the Oborne documentary. I found that interesting. The post was forwarded me by a friend who is usually a reliable source. I read it swiftly – TOO swiftly! I _wish_ I had read it more slowly, because then I would have no doubt noticed (for instance) the dodgy way he was sliding between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’, and then I wouldn’t have retweeted it, and then we would all have been saved a lot of trouble…
I obviously regret the offence and any embarrassment caused. I’ve said sorry, and I’ve learned from this.
So, while I don’t appreciate the slagging-off and name-calling that I have suffered during this unfortunate incident, which I think has been unwarranted and does not help us to mutually ‘engage’, I _do_ appreciate having been shown just how dodgy this man and much of his writing are, and having been reminded about the need for pro-active vigilance and care against genuine anti-semitism.
So, in that regard, thank you to those who have written here.”

and

Rupert Read November 21, 2009 at 7:50 pm

“To be clear: I NEVER endorsed Atzmon’s article. I read it [too quickly – I regret that!], found some of it interesting, agreeing with some of the remarks he made [which were mostly a rehash of the excellent Oborne DISPATCHERS programme exposing the extremely-worrying influence of the Zionist lobby in politics in this country], and tweeted it. THAT’S ALL. I did _not_ endorse it as a whole.
The Atzmon post was forwarded me by a friend who is usually a reliable source. I read it swiftly; I _wish_ I had read it more slowly, because then I would have no doubt noticed the dodgy way he was sliding between ‘Jewish’ and ‘Zionist’,
and then I wouldn’t have retweeted it, and then we would all have been saved a lot of trouble…
I obviously regret the offence and any embarrassment caused. …I also distinctly regret the unpleasant personal attacks on me and false descriptions of me in a couple of comments above. Please bear in mind, colleagues, that if you really do want to ENGAGE with people, you need to try not to slag them off and make potentially damaging false allegations against them…
I welcome the chance of clarifying things, and hope that we can start to draw a line under this, now… {See also my comment on Mira’s next post.)”

and

Rupert Read November 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm

“Thanks, Mira; this is useful.
Cohen is an impressive writer, and much of what he says in Chapter 3 of the book you cite is bang on the mark. I agree 100% with the particular quotation from Cohen that you have given above. Those of us who are anti-Zionists need to ensure that we are 100% serious and active in our anti-anti-semitism. Anti-semitism fuels the ‘rebound’ (among those oppressed by that anti-semitism) into Zionism. Unless we can extirpate or at least combat/reduce anti-semitism, it is fairly certain that Zionism will continue to have wide appeal. So there is a strong onus on all of us who are not Zionists to be committed anti-anti-semites.”

Update 6: Whilst Dr. Read has managed to post on the ‘Scandal’ over hacked climate-science emails at UEA: Don’t believe the hype, he hasn’t addressed in any significant way those questions put to him at Engage/Greens Engage. I don’t think Dr. Read understand the severity of this issue, and why he must quickly deal with it.

Update 7: A few days in, and still Dr. Read hasn’t commented on his blog, or comprehensively addressed many of the points raised over at Engage. All in all rather unsatisfactory. Still a couple of other Greens quickly came out, saw the issue and acknowledge the racism, which is hopeful, shame that a Green parliamentary candidate can’t go that far. I’ll try to return to this issue shortly.