The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – giving in to the extremists

Cross posted from the blog of David Collier

Hezbollah emblems at PSC event outside Israeli embassyRecent events within the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) suggest that the movement is losing the fight to keep its internal extremists at bay and has begun a descent towards civil war that may see the movement entirely overrun by antisemites and supporters of terror organisations.

The PSC was formed in 1982 in the UK. It has been referenced as the major proponent in the UK, of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The Facebook page has 461,000 likes, and the movement lists over 60 regional branches on its website.

As is the case with the Palestinians themselves, there are many faces to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. There is the moderate, accommodating, peaceful face they use as they seek to enlist political or public support for the boycott campaign, there are the more radical elements they unleash to cower the pro-Israeli voice in universities and then there are those supporters that they must keep suppressed, those that maintain positions entirely unacceptable in UK society.

Many of the 461,000 likes it has received on Facebook come from well-intentioned people, who have some sympathy for the Palestinians and have been moved to register their affiliation by a never-ending stream of purposefully disseminated images that reach their social media accounts. Yet these people do not reflect the movement that they align themselves with; in fact, they are the farthest thing from it.

Last summer, following the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, the government updated its PREVENT duty guidance. Mainly directed towards schools and universities, it was a response to the radicalisation of British youth, at home, in educational institutions and online. With young people having such easy access to an ideology that suggests democracy and basic British values are something to be rejected, a ‘duty’ has been placed onto those who care for our children’s education. It is a safeguard issue, just as we would expect our educators to notice visible signs of other forms of abuse. It takes a rather extreme position to actively want to oppose the PREVENT guidance on ideological grounds.

CRTjUnCW8AIO7DLIn October, the PSC were one of the major organisers behind a ‘Protest for Palestine’ event outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington. News soon spread that at the event, emblems and flags of both the Hezbollah and Hamas had been displayed. Several people were arrested. The event itself had taken place against the backdrop of the latest surge in violence and in protest at the way Israelis were defending themselves against the terror attacks. The demonstration therefore was a visible salute to the terror groups. Despite this, PSC Director Sarah Colborne said at the time that the movement had specifically asked that only “Palestinian national flags would be welcome at the protest”.

As Director of the PSC, Sarah Colborne was well aware of the fine line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, and several times in the past had moved to publicly distance the movement from extremists that would highlight the ‘under-the-surface’ connection between support for the Palestinians and both support for terrorist groups and virulent antisemitism. Here are two other examples:

Colborne made comments spanning several years, explicitly distancing the movement from Gilad Atzmon because of his antisemitic statements.

When during the summer at another PSC event, vicious antisemitic statements were caught on camera (see here and here), the PSC moved swiftly to publicly condemn the antisemitism that had been witnessed at the event.

But antisemitism is the swamp fever of the pro-Palestinian movements and many of those that align themselves with anti-Israeli causes also identify with terror groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah. When the illogical hatred of all things ‘Israel’ consumes every essence of rational thought, those that kill Israelis, no matter how vile, illegal and destructive, become symbols of ‘justifiable resistance’ that can be admired. It doesn’t have to make sense, there are too many examples around us to ignore the truth. How decent minded left-wing ‘humanists’ can stand alongside these people is something only future research will be able to uncover. What is for certain is that Sarah Colborne was sitting on top of a pressure cooker made up of antisemites and terrorist sympathisers.

Immediately following the event and the arrests, ‘noises’ began to be heard from the extremist camp. In a clear signal that something was amiss within the PSC, Tony Greenstein ran a blog suggesting the PSC may have aided “the Police in harassment of Palestine Activists”. The blog itself is Tony’s usual diatribe, but it displays an emerging pattern of thought that Colborne, because of her efforts to keep both antisemites and extremists at arm’s length, was a ‘traitor’ to the cause.

It is worthwhile at this point to recall PREVENT, because Hamas and Hezbollah (military wing) are both proscribed terrorist organisations in the UK. As such, there can be little doubt that supporters of such movements, groups that commit acts of terror not unlike those witnessed recently in Paris, stand against both British values and our system of democracy. All Sarah Colborne had apparently done, was asked that these groups not be publicly glorified. Why does Tony Greenstein, and from the comments in Tony’s blog, also Illan Pappe, have a problem with the request to lower the flag of Hezbollah in London? The answer of course is that Tony doesn’t consider Hezbollah or Hamas terror groups, nor it seems to do many of the PSC supporters, because within 6 weeks of the event, Colborne had gone, ousted from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The announcement of Colborne’s departure was made quickly and quietly on December 10th. No reasons were given.

Shortly before this in November, the Co-op bank, in yet another sign that the PSC is a group in trouble, closed various bank accounts connected to the movement. It seems as if the mask was slipping more quickly that any one person could set it back in place. Then in almost a direct response to Colborne’s departure, the PSC in Brighton publicly affiliated with the ‘Together Against Prevent’ movement which opposes entirely the anti-radicalisation PREVENT strategy. Other signatures on the Together Against Prevent website include the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’, ‘London Palestine Action’ and ‘Stop the War coalition Scotland’. A day later, on Dec 29th Gilad Atzmon wrote a blog about Colborne titled ‘A Solidarity Campaigner Or A Traitorsuggesting that he had heard the Director of the PSC ‘had to go’, because she ‘collaborated with police’. Atzmon went on to describe Colborne’s anti-racist stance as a “sound-bite outburst of diarrhoea”. Atzmon finished by posting a copy of a letter from the Islamic Human Right Commission (IHRC) to the PSC that suggests collaboration with the British police is cause for instant resignation. Note that the IHRC are also one of the signatures on the ‘Together Against Prevent’ petition.

WP_20151017_13_19_49_ProThere is little doubt that all these events are connected. From the antisemitic and extremist outbursts at the summer demonstration, the waving of the emblems of Hamas and Hezbollah, the closure of the Co-op accounts, the opposition to PREVENT and the internal conflict that led to Colborne’s departure. The clear messages by Atzmon, the IHRC and Greenstein suggest government opposition to radicalisation and extremism are now in direct conflict with the powers that be in the PSC. Colborne was no friend of mine, but it seems clear that the moderating forces in the PSC are losing out and the extremists are taking over the asylum. If the people who want to wave Hamas and Hezbollah flags have forced out the person who opposed it, if the antisemites are calling her a traitor, then we have a clear indication of what is now in control of the PSC.

PREVENT is a necessary tool in the fight against radicalisation. It is vital that movements that are on the fringe, those that know they have members who cross the line, should be those most eager to engage the police and ensure they themselves are not party to any radicalisation process. It is no coincidence that the places named and shamed as giving a stage to radical extremists, such as SOAS, are amongst those who are most vocal in their opposition to PREVENT.

The PSC has now given a clear message of opposition to an initiative intent on stopping the breeding of terrorists on British soil. It also seems that helping the British police maintain the law, is a matter for instant dismissal at the PSC. This isn’t a movement that identifies with peace, but rather with the enemies of freedom and justice and democracy. Those that support this movement should draw the obvious conclusions. Those that monitor radicalisation and extremism should follow suit.

55 replies »

  1. This is a good article, David, but this view of Colborne is flat wrong:

    “As Director of the PSC, Sarah Colborne was well aware of the fine line between the acceptable and the unacceptable, and several times in the past had moved to publicly distance the movement from extremists that would highlight the ‘under-the-surface’ connection between support for the Palestinians and both support for terrorist groups and virulent antisemitism. ”

    Sarah Colborne was one of the people on the Mavi Marmara. She lied for years about what happened. The Guardian maintained a video of her false reportage for a year or more on CiF.

    To assume she objects to anti-Semitism is rather a stretch.

    • AKUS….you misread that paragraph if you believe it suggests Colborne was anything more than aware of the need to publicly condemn antisemitism. It does not say anything more than she was aware of PR issues.

      • Its a fine line line, David, and you may well be right – that she is pandering to the PC sentiments of those who want to assuage their guilt over condemning Israel by making what I believe is a non-existent distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel/anti-Zionist speech and activities.

        Thanks for an excellent and informative commentary on what is going on inside the PSC.

      • As a second thought, is it possible that she has actually realized whop are the wort of people she has been associating with? After all, we not infrequently see a turn about by an ultra-leftist who later becomes a ultra-right-wing person (not that she is, I assume – yet). One-time Marxist David Horowitz comes to mind.

        • D.H. is not ‘ultra-right-wing’, merely sane.
          “what I believe is a non-existent distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel/anti-Zionist speech and activities” – indeed. There is none.
          I am struggling to understand what ‘fine line’ means in this context. This is not a complex legal issue involving conflicting legislation about boundary disputes, where reasonable arguments and legal rulings may go either way. The line between antisemitism and non-antisemitism seems to be perfectly clear-cut, whatever apologists for BDS, as-a-Jews etc might claim.

          • The ultra right-wingers are the Islamists who execute gays, force dress codes on women, deny the Holocaust, force girls into arranged marriages, bomb innocent people, threaten to kill people who write books they don’t like, threaten the UK with 9/11 scale massacre, kill British soldiers.

            Why the fascist left embraces the fascist koran thumping right – is a mystery – to those who blindly embrace Socialism.

          • Surprised you are struggling. Almost everyone understands there is that which can be said and that which cannot be said. Fronting a group that contains many extremists (sorry, I do not buy the line that everyone who waves a Palestinian flag is an extremist), would no doubt involve placing many red lines through things that members want to say. Someone like the Director of a movement like that, would build up a certain skillset in knowing what can be got away with and what cannot. It isn’t about her opinion, merely about her PR skills. Do you think Arafat said in English what was on his mind, or do you accept he knew what would gain him brownie points and what would bring criticism?

            • Ah well, if you are talking about the propaganda of fascists as seen from *their* demented perspective, that’s true enough.
              I was talking about the attitude of sane people to antisemitism.
              Abbas does the same as Arafat. I am well aware of the difference between his schmoozing of idiot Westerners, and the Nazi propaganda on Fatahland TV,

        • Stephen, my article follows on from blogs that called on her to resign, a letter from the IHRC that suggested the PSC leadership should step down (if they indeed had taken the actions attributed to them), from the silence and suddeness of the departure itself and finally from Atzmon’s piece that clearly suggested she was ‘forced out’. As you are probably aware, I think I would be the last person to receive ‘inside information’, so I am drawing material together to make what to me seems like a valid case.

  2. I notice you hold the PSC responsible for the appearance of Hamas and Hezbollah flags at their demonstrations. Can we take it you also hold North West Friends of Israel and Sussex Friends of Israel responsible for the racist EDL members who attend and promote their events?

    • Gabriel (hope all is well with you), I think you are stretching to try to make an irrelevant political point. As far as I am aware, the arrests were not from within the PSC. Speaking of guilt by association, yesterday, one of the people who apparently ‘shows yachad activists around’ making sure they ‘see stuff’, was outed as a man who entraps Palestinians seeking to sell land, handing them over to the Palestinian security services where they face torture or death. Nice to know your tours call him a human rights activist isn’t it?

    • Well some may recall that the Zionist Federation’s response to the EDL presence at their Ahava demos was something close to this…..

      ” this isn’t Tehran, Damascus, or Cairo. We can’t control who demonstrates on the streets of London.” This from memory but it is at least close.

      • I am not sure who you are arguing with nor what point you are trying to prove. I also do not see any relevance between trying to push guilt by association and the article. This type of discussion really isn’t my thing. If you get around to trying to make a case I’ll engage if it interests me.

        • David I am not a PSC member, nor am I that much of a sympathiser. I think their tactics and strategy suck. But I don’t think slagging them because they were on the same street as some nut jobs quite works. I am saying that you not merely find yourself on the same street as certain nut jobs but positively count them as allies.

          • Talking of nut jobs, Bellamy is given a run for his money by this mouth-frothing charmer:
            Of course, even a stopped clock etc, and he is right to describe Colborne’s “all forms of racism, including … Islamophobia [sic]” as a “standard sound-bite outburst of diarrhea”.
            BTW, does he not consider himself British? Or maybe it’s not meant to be American spelling but merely illiteracy.

          • I didn’t slag anyone off because ‘they were on the same street’, and I find the comparsion with EDL remarkably weak. I doubt you would claim that arguments over ritual slaughter that see the ZF and IHRC line up on a similiar side, suggests these two are ideological partners beyond a specific cause. The fundamental difference of course is that within the PSC are many supporters who are Hamasniks and are ‘kept down’ by a leadership that knows how that will play out in the media. This isn’t anything like the comparison being brought forward by yourself and ‘my good friend’ Gabriel.

            • Understand that. But the specific cause that your allies line up with the EDL over is Muslim baiting . Like Levinson said, ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I wouldn’t want to suggest that they are ideological partners beyond this specific cause. This isn’t new. I have suggested this to you before and I hope you don’t interpret it as any animosity towards you…….. if you don’t dissociate yourself from these creeps or at least quit visibly associating yourself with them, it impacts severely and heavily on the credibility of anything you say ( quite a lot of which is highly credible).

              • “the specific cause that your allies line up with the EDL over is Muslim baiting” – LMAO.
                “it impacts severely and heavily on the credibility of anything you say” – comedy gold.

              • Firstly they do not line up over a cause and certainly not ‘Muslim baiting’. The ‘Muslims’ (and they are not all Muslims) turn up to oppose something Zionist, not the other way around, so the Zionists are not ‘baiting anyone’ but rather are being ‘baited’. If those ‘Muslims’ turned up to protest something else, the Zionists would not turn up at all, but the EDL still would. This makes their joint appearance at an event merely correlated. Secondly, I am not sure which ‘creeps’ you wish me to dissasociate from, as I see myself as unaligned, entirely independent and quick to publicly condemn things that I disagree with wherever they may have come from. As a rule you dislike almost anything that supports Israel and as a rule I like most of them, so it is not an area we would agree on anyway. That type of conversation though would be better placed occurring one day on one of my own blog posts though, rather than hijacking someone elses.

                • David, the ” correlation ” you speak of is, as Levinson makes clear, a ” the enemy of my enemy is my friend ” thing and the enemy he has in mind is clearly Muslims. Further, in the early days of Sussex Friends of Israel strenuous efforts were made to establish relationships with European off shoots of the terrorist Victor Vancier;s JTF. This is well documented. As for commenting here, this is where I found it. One assumes that by cross posting here you intended it to be read and commented on here. I can’t see that my commenting here is therefore, more inappropriate than anyone else doing so.

                  My point is simply that you imply that a small number of idiots being present at PSC instigated demonstrations tells us something about the PSC. If that is the case, well, you know, pots and kettles and all that.

                  • Of course, dear. Antisemitism in the PSC is an exceptional occurrence. The fact that it has been reported extensively as being well-established at many branches, has been documented thoroughly by e.g. Harry’s Place, and been condemned even by no less than e.g. ‘Mossad agents’ such as Tony Greenstein, is all a Ziocon calumny. Nothing to see here, move along.

                    • Stephen, I always appreciate points being challenged, because it is the only way they can be properly tested. Just hanging around with my friends, who agree with every point, isn’t a way to formulate an idea, this way works much better.

                      We are however dealing with separate issues and you seem to be trying to connect them as one. I fully accept that when taking a position in any argument, there will be those who stand on the same side as you who are distasteful. If a Zionist supporter at some time has used the phrase ‘the enemy of my enemy’, it is no more than all groups do at one time or another. But this is not my issue, I do not have to answer for anyone else and I find this kind of association mudslinging pointless. The British allied with Stalin, I doubt Churchill was a closet communist.

                      Yet the two cases (yours and mine) are different because in one, you are using a video comment referring to an external group to create guilt through association. I am not. You also seem to be suggesting I am using the appearance of a few Hamas and Hezbollah flags to discredit the PSC. I am not doing this either.

                      My blog is not about the flags at all, but about what happened to the person who opposed them. If Sarah was ousted for her actions, this implies supports for those flags is robust, is internal and is the predominant, most powerful position of the leading members of the group. I also think that if someone believes support for Hamas or Hezbollah is a marginal position with the Palestinian community, they haven’t been paying attention to what is going on over there.

    • Always a pleasure to have your input, since it whipsaws between being completely wrong-headed (like your defense, along with Miranda Bastard, of the “persecuted Christians in Israel” article that unfortunately smells like month-old fish in the aftermath of the paper nixing their idiotic conclusions) and just mostly wrong-headed (EDL’s relationship to pro-Israeli groups, whom they hate and vice versa, is based on EDL’s opportunism and genuine hatred for your Muslim friends; PSC just flat out loves the terrorist groups and has made that clear–ESPECIALLY NOW). You do a lot of the heavy lighting for me, that makes you a great troll.

  3. Oh dear, what a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense.

    Apparently I have lined up with Gilad Atzmon to force Sarah Colborne out of PSC. Utter nonsense. I do have criticisms of how PSC reacted to the presence of Hizbollah flags at said demonstration. I did not call for Sarah’s resignation.

    I personally led the campaign within the wider Palestine solidarity movvement to exorcise Gilad Atzmon and his tiny band of anti-Semitic supporters from the wider movement. In that we were entirely successful, not only just in the UK but internationally, when Ali Abunimah and some 20 other leading Palestinians cut Atzmon out of the movement.

    Would that Zionist supporters would do the same to racists in their own movement. You know, people like Ayelet Shaked, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Liebermann, Benjaimin Netanyahu – but then again if you expelled racists from your movement who would you have left?

    Atzmon is, in any case, no supporter of the Palestine solidarity movement. Many people have suggested he may be a Mossad asset. Who knows? He is though on record as opposing BDS and everything he says about Palestine reeks of an underlying Zionist sympathy.

    Yes PSC members oppose Prevent and the anti-Extremism agenda. We know very well that ‘terrorism’ is used as a pretext to clamp down on peoples’ freedoms and civil liberties. Thus the Kurdish Workers Party, the PKK is classified as a terrorist organisation whereas the genocidal Turkish state is not.

    Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are terrorist organisations. They don’t engage in terrorism, i.e. the use of violence to cause terror in civilian populations. They defend their peoples and both are the creation of Israel and its terror bombing and shelling. That is why I have no problem with them flying their flags, despite the fact that I do not support their Islamist politics. It is a Zionist ploy to equate Isis and Al Qaeda, both of which Israel de facto supports, with other Islamic organisations. This is a political trick and the organisations have no similarity. Hamas and Hezbollah are both opposed to Isis militarily and politically.

    What is more worrying is the synergy between Zionist organisations and the far-right and not simply the EDL. The open support for Israel and Zionism by Michal Kaminski MEP and Robert Zile of the Polish Law & Justice and the Latvian LNNK parties is more worrying. Kaminski opposed a national Polish apology for the murder, the burning alive of up to 900 Jews in Jedwabne in 1941. Zile marches each year with the Latvian Waffen SS. Both were honoured guests in Israel, visitors to Yad Vashem and speakers at security conferences. Kaminski was also a guest speaker at the Conservative Friends of Israel fringe meeting in 2009.

    As for the EDL. I think the photo on my blog of them attacking Birmingham PSC’s stall in the town centre, with an Israeli flag in one hand and giving a Hitler salute with the other hand says it all.

    If you don’t think a holocaust denial organisation is anything to get worried about it demonstrates what your real agenda is.

    • Well you should know, you yourself are one big walking conpiracy theory with your obvious preoccupation with agendas. Have you ever been in therapy for your paranoid ideation?

      So you “exorcised” Gilad Atzmon! (I note the language which illustrates your own malignant narcissism) You were then and still are a poisonous weed. What do you want for acting as the “exorcist” – a pat on the back?

      What synergy, apart from in your fevered conspiracy-addled imagination.

      Away with you. You’re a terminal waste of space.

      • It’s kind of remarkable that this arse honestly thinks what he wrote makes anyone other than his allies look like shit.

        • Given his malignant narcissism I don’t think it’s at all remarkable. It’s the nature of the Greenstein beast. He must be hungry for narcissistic supply.

    • oh Tony, I got as far as the first sentence where you state “apparently I have lined up with Gilad Atzmon to force Sarah Colborne out of PSC.” I realised at this point you neither read nor understood the article. Never mind.

        • I am not sure Stephen, because I am not inside the PSC. I did try to make clear in the article that there were signs of discontent, calls for resignation and so on, that started soon after the flag incident. Within 6 weeks she was gone. There are 1000 possible scenarios and I don’t build conspiracy theories. It might have been too many complaints, threats of breakaway movements, threats from the funders or any of 997 other such feasible scenarios. All I know is that this chain of events occurred and it seems as if internally at the PSC, adherence to PREVENT, opposition to Hamas flags and so on, are no longer welcome. Mine is a logical assumption, built on evidence, guessing exactly ‘what happened’ isn’t the type of game I play.

          • Maybe it’s simply that these people are hard-wired to hate. That is their motivation in life. A day in which they can’t denounce some former comrade as a traitor to the cause, or form a new splinter group, is a day wasted. Just look at any far left group of losers (or far right, for that matter; although I am becoming increasingly convinced that ‘left’ and ‘right’ have become meaningless terms. I am slightly left of centre on socio-economic issues, but because I am a Zionist I am routinely vilified as a ‘far right thug’. Conversely, soi-disant ‘socialists’ tend to be enamoured of classic fascists like Hamas).
            Monty Python got it right in Life of Brian when describing such people. And as Sheldon might have said, Life of Brian is funny because it’s true.

          • David, it is the nature of organisations like the PSC, founded on paranoid hatred of outsiders, that they themselves, deprived of targets or where those targets prove too much for them, turn inward upon themselves. It’s as if the mounting, unreasoning rage has to have some outlet and, given as they are to florid imaginings, the enraged manufacture offence where there is merely difference of opinion. Think of communism under Stalin and since.

            I feel sure of one thing – that such organisations do absolutely no favours whatsoever for the objects of their pity; rather they collude with their unrealistic and exaggerated sense of victimhood which encourages the “victims” to take more and more liberties. So enmeshed are their “rescuers” in their pity objects’ victimhood that they maintain it rather than encourage sensible action to bring about a more healthy state of affairs.

            The extent of the paranoia of the likes of Greenstein et al are evident from his behaviour – I am amazed that he (and probably others) feels the need to drop in on (possibly even monitor) UK Media Watch, and it’s an index of his utter lack of insight that if he could believe that he might have anything constructive to add to discussion here.

      • I note the normal abuse and ad hominems. Par for the course for frothing Zionists of course. I understood the article very well, not that there was much to understand.

        It is the usual far-right political nonsense coming from Zionism. At least these days you don’t pretend to have an affinity with socialism, since ‘left’ Zionism has died a death. However the Prevent strategy and the Counter-Extremism proposals are not the safeguard mechanisms you describe. They are part and parcel of a government agenda aimed at closing down debate and curtailing basic civil liberties. All the definitions of ‘terrorism’ could be applied to Israel so they are entirely subjective. Or maybe you seriously think that the genocidal Turkish state is a normative one and the PKK are terrorists?

        And to John Kinory. Yes Atzmon, like many other anti-Semites, is a Zionist. From Herzl onwards Zionists found favour with anti-Semites and vicer versa. What is strange in that? His bitterest criticisms are not of Zionism, which he endorses as a genuine Jewish national movement, but anti-Zionist Jews. The fact that he doesn’t like what Zionism does and ascribes it to Jewish racial characteristics is neither here nor there.

        Simple isn’t it? Even an abusive Zionist should understand this.

        And to all those who ascribe a political difference to some psychological analysis. Don’t worry you’re in good company. Isn’t that what Stalin prescribed? Cancer ward and all that?

    • I do try to engage people who disagree with me Tony, especially anti-Zionists, but even I have trouble grasping what you are saying. I think we exist on two entirely different planets. Your attacks on ‘frothing Zionists’ is just your usual way of avoiding substance, your claim of the demise of ‘left Zionism’ indicates you incorrectly conflate peace moves with economics, and your argument against Prevent is hardly surprising given your last comment suggested Hamas, a radical, Islamic, bus bombing, child abusing, Jihad driven, group of ISIS wannabees, isn’t a terror group.

      Your description of Atzmon is typical of a ‘conspiracy style’ of commentary. Atzmon is no Zionist and believes that Jews are such a creed, that if one were to suggest support for a Jewish national project, “planet Earth is certainly not the ideal location” (I found that quote on Rense). Whilst some antisemites do support the idea of a ‘far off nation of Jews’ – as it ‘cleanses’ their own towns and cities, most are antizionists who view a nation filled mainly with Jews as a particularly nasty affair. Your own writings suggest you fit into the latter category better than the first – as Atzmons’ writings clearly suggest of him too.

      Simple isn’t it!

  4. These are statements of fact, Greenstein. That you construe them as ad homina say more about you than about the people who express them.