Israeli Arms Trade, The Lobby and the Meaning of Chosenness

 BY GILAD ATZMON

tehran Times .jpg

Source: https://www.tehrantimes.com/

 “America is willing to sacrifice its young soldiers and national interests and even its economy for Israel,” Gilad Atzmon, who was born in a Jewish family in Israel and grew up in Jerusalem al-Quds, tells the Tehran Times. *
Atzmon, who now lives in Britain, also says, “Israeli pressure groups seem to believe that they are actually more powerful and certainly more important than the American constitution.” 
The following is the text of the interview:

Tehran Times:       Numerous rights bodies have slammed Western countries’ arms trade with Israel. What is your comment?

Gilad Atzmon: For decades, Israel has been selling killing machines to the most oppressive regimes around the world and this shouldn’t be surprising, as Israel itself is at the forefront of the list of oppressive regimes.

 Embarrassed by the Israeli government’s current arming of Azerbaijan in its war with Armenia,  Holocaust scholar Israel W. Charny penned an article for The Times of Israel titled:  Would Israel sell a used drone to a Hitler? Charny admits in his piece that Israel’s conduct is fundamentally unethical. He ends his commentary writing, “to my Armenian colleagues and friends, I can only say that as a Jew and as an Israeli, I am mortified – and angry.”

 I would think that if Israel’s leading genocide historian allows himself to admit in an Israeli nationalist outlet that the Jewish State is profiting from non-ethical arms trade, the rest of us should be entitled to engage with this topic freely and to use every possible platform to denounce Israel or anyone else from profiting from non- ethical practices.

 The issues go well beyond Israel’s arms trade. A few days ago we learned from the Jewish Press about a Bipartisan bill in America that would give Israel a say on Middle East arms sales. The bill “would require the President to consult with the Israeli government to ensure concerns are settled.” If the bill passes, the USA military industrial complex trade would be dependent on Israeli consent.  

Tehran Times:   How great is the influence of the Zionist and Jewish lobbies in the United States and how can this status quo change?

GA: The facts regarding the immense influence of Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the USA and other Western countries have been established for a while. One can refer to The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a detailed study by two of the most influential American social scientists  (Prof. John Mersheimer & Prof. Stephen Walt). Another leading American political scientist admired by a generation of academics who also covered the topic is, of course, Prof James Petras in his book The Power of Israel in the United States.

What can be done about the well documented domination of AIPAC? I would like to believe that the most effective method to approach this topic would be to point squarely at The Lobby and its corrosive impact: this entails pointing the finger at the wars the USA fights on behalf of Israel, the sanctions that the USA mounts for Israel, the fact that America is willing to sacrifice its young soldiers and national interests and even its economy for Israel. Theoretically speaking, American citizens are entitled to voice such criticisms as freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment of their constitution. Israeli pressure groups seem to believe that they are actually more powerful and certainly more important than the American constitution. A few months ago we learned that Right wing activists attempted to spread new laws across Republican controlled states that would suppress criticism on public university campuses of Israel and its occupation of Palestinian territory.

By now, the USA is practically functioning as a remote and subservient Israeli satellite. I am unable to identify  any genuine political force in the USA that can change this anytime soon. I do not see anyone within American politics who is willing to tackle the matter. But the American people, like the Brits and the French are no fools, they see it all.

Tehran Times:    Though Israel is violating and defying international law on a daily basis, its Western supporters and allies continue to support these actions or at least turn a blind eye to what is taking place. How do you assess this double standard?

GA: In general, it’s a good practice not to overestimate people’s intelligence. But Israel and its Lobby make the opposite mistake; they tend to believe that people are far stupider than they are.

People do see what is going on and the general discomfort with Israel and its lobby is growing rapidly. People do notice Israeli criminality, they also notice their politicians on all levels operating as foreign agents for a criminal state.  Israel and The Lobby interpret this rise of awareness as ‘growing anti-Semitism,’ but this is hyperbole. A general mass awareness has surfaced. The Israelis and The Lobby know that once you see the full picture, you can’t just un-see it. In that respect, Israel is facing a wall of silent resistance and the consequences of this reality are unpredictable.

It is fascinating to observe the tsunami of mass protests that we see within Israel against Netanyahu and institutional corruption. The Israelis, or at least many of them, are also tired of themselves being themselves. It is very possible that in line with Jewish history, it will actually  be the Jews who bring their current empire down. As far as I can tell they are better at that battle than anyone else. 

Tehran Times:       How do the Western countries exploit Human Rights as a tool to apply their policies and how do they politicize Human Rights?

GA: Human rights issues are close to our hearts. We don’t like to see abuse of others, we hate discrimination, we are appalled by racism of any kind. Seemingly, some were clever enough to attach barcodes to these genuine universal and ethical  feelings. As things stand, human rights matters have morphed into a profitable industry. Many human rights campaigns are funded by elements who are themselves dedicated human rights abusers. 

Since the Palestinian struggle is close to my heart it took me little time to find out that while the BDS movement was receiving money from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, BDS changed its goal statement and practically gave up on the Palestinian Right of Return.

In 2012 the BDS National Committee in Ramallah made a crucial change to its goal statement. It changed the wording of its original (June 2005) mission statement from “demanding that Israel end its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” to demanding that Israel end “its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967*” My attempt to find out who introduced this change revealed that this new wording first appeared in Omar Barghouti’s 2011 book, ‘BDS: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights’ (page 6).

It seems that since 2011, The BDS National Committee basically abandoned the most precious Palestinian right—it drifted away from the commitment to land occupied since 1948 and limited its struggle to the liberation of lands occupied in 1967.  Further attempts to clarify who made the change and by what process revealed that this significant change was made in a clandestine manner—it appeared only in English. It has never appeared in Arabic or any other language. It is evident that the change took place behind the backs of the Palestinian people. Despite BDS’ claim to be a ‘civil society’ representing more than 170 Palestinian organizations, Palestinians were totally unaware of the BDS National Committee’s compromise of their mission.  

Further investigation revealed that BDS—like most Palestinian NGOs—was funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute. In 2013 I was asked to review a book titled Israel/Palestine and the Queer International,by Sarah Schulman. It was Schulman who resolved the mysterious change in the  BDS goal statement. In her search for funding for a young Palestinian Queer USA tour in support of BDS, Schulman wrote  that she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:

“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Israel/Palestine and the Queer Internationalby Sarah Schulman p. 108).

Here is clear and embarrassing evidence of a crude intervention made by George Soros’ institute in an attempt to shape Arab and Islamic culture and political life. We also learn about the manner in which Soros’ Open Society Institute introduces gay and queer politics to the region. Apparently money for a tour promoting Palestine and BDS is traveling from Soros’ Open Society to Jordan and then back to the USA with the hope that such a manoeuvre would “inspire” gays in Iran.

This makes it clear why  BDS had “good reason” to remain silent regarding its funding sources. After all, being funded directly or indirectly by a liberal Zionist philanthropist, a man who also funds the openly Zionist JStreet and was invested in Israeli companies in the West Bank, is indeed embarrassing. But the meaning of it is rather devastating. The discourse of the solidarity of the oppressed is shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor who funds the movement of the oppressed. We see this in the Palestine solidarity movement, we saw the same thing in Occupy Wall Street and currently in some segments of BLM activity. Instead of genuinely caring for the oppressed, Human rights and solidarity movements often morph into policing forces that dedicate themselves to controlling the so-called opposition.

The case of the language of BDS has a good ending. Though Omar Barghouti didn’t change the words printed in his book where he bluntly compromised on occupied land demands on behalf of the Palestinian people. The BDS movement eventually changed its goal statement once again. It now resembles the original 2005 statement opposing occupation of ALL Arab Land.  

Tehran Times:      Why doesn’t Israel accept the idea of a nuclear-free zone in the region?

GA: The real meaning of thinking yourself chosen is in attributing a unique sense of impunity to yourself and to no one else. In real politics this means that your Jewish State is the only nuclear power in the region, your Air Force is the only one to fly F-35s, your army is not committed to any recognized ethical standards, your military industry trades with the darkest regimes around. Try to imagine a world where everyone believes themselves to be chosen.

  • In the Interview the Iranian outlet refers to me as “a Jewish political activist.” I wrote to the Tehran Times and pointed out that I am neither an activist nor I am a Jew. However, by the time I posted this article, my request is yet to make any impact.

Donate

Bully-Boy Minister’s Christmas Message to UK Universities….

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

Adopt anti-Semitism definition that’s ‘too vague to be useful’, or I’ll axe your funding!
Gavin Williamson ef951

Gavin Williamson is Education Secretary in the screwball government of Boris Johnson. And he has just threatened universities that they could have their funding cut if they don’t adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism before Christmas.

Williamson wrote to vice-chancellors last week saying he was “frankly disappointed” that there were still “too many disturbing incidents of anti-Semitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this”, and that the number of universities adopting the definition “remains shamefully low”.

“These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular,” he said.

He insists that adopting the IHRA definition “is morally the right thing to do” – and he underlines morally! “You should have no doubt: this government has zero tolerance towards anti-Semitism. If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act.”

“The repugnant belief that anti-Semitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that anti-Semitism is abhorrent.”

The OfS said they will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure the IHRA definition’s wider adoption. But Universities UK were more cautious: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle anti-Semitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.” And that last bit is what Williamson ought to have considered before stupidly going off the deep end.

Individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions

Williamson’s first problem is his ignorance. He’s completely at odds with the opinion of top legal experts who were asked for their views by Free Speech on IsraelIndependent Jewish VoicesJews for Justice for Palestinians and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. In a nutshell, those in public life cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression which applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or anyone else.

There is a further obligation to allow all concerned in public debate “to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”.

Read Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Williamson, which says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression including “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Also, check Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says the same sort of thing, subject of course to the usual limitations required by law and respect for the rights of others.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that before accepting the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, two caveats should be included:

  • It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
  • It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.

The Government, in its eagerness to appease the Zionist lobby, dropped the caveats saying they weren’t necessary.

Eminent human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC also criticised the definition. Firstly, it wasn’t a legally binding so didn’t have the force of a statutory one. And it couldn’t be considered a legal definition of anti-Semitism as it lacked clarity. Therefore any conduct contrary to the IHRA definition couldn’t necessarily be ruled illegal.

Secondly, the language was far too vague to be useful as a tool.  In Tomlinson’s view the Government’s decision to adopt the IHRA Definition was simply a freestanding statement of policy, a mere suggestion. No public body is under an obligation to adopt or use it, or, given the unsatisfactory nature of the definition, should be criticised for refusing.

He warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the definition then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations. In particular, it cannot behave in a manner inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if they are contrary to those defended by the authorities or by a large part of public opinion”.

So, in Tomlinson’s opinion the IHRA Definition doesn’t mean that calling Israel an apartheid state that practises settler colonialism, or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel, can properly be characterized as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, a public authority seeking to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully.”

Government’s ‘naive stance’

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Stephen Sedley, also offered advice criticising the IHRA working definition for lack of legal force. “At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.”

He added that the right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, “places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed”. Moreover the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”.

Sedley was of the view that the IHRA definition is open to manipulation and “what is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee.”

Williamson’s second problem is his prejudice. He’s a fanatical Israel worshipper and far from neutral in the hype surrounding anti-Semitism in the UK. In January 2018 when he was defence secretary he addressed an audience of over 250 Conservative Friends of Israel and supporters, including 50 parliamentarians, telling them that “Britain will always be Israel’s friend” and praising Israel as a “beacon of light and hope, in a region where there is so much hatred and hurt”. He added: “We shouldn’t underestimate how difficult it is to keep that light bright and burning”.

Recalling his visit to Israel as a teenager, he said: “What I found was a liberal, free, exciting country that was so at ease with itself, a country that absorbed and welcomed so many people. That made an enormous impression upon me”.

Williamson condemned the “completely unreasonable…sheer simple hatred” channelled towards Israel and asked: “If we are not there to stand up for a country, whose views and ideals are so close, or are simply our own, what are we as a nation? What are we in politics, if we cannot accept and celebrate the wonderful blooming of democracy that is Israel?”

Achingly funny. And highlighting the UK’s role in the creation of Israel, he said: “Britain and Israel have an amazing relationship. We would like to think that we were very much at the birth of the nation, and very much helped it in terms of its delivery and coming into the world”.

He said that Britain and Israel have “a strong and firm relationship of working together. It’s a relationship of partners….  It’s a partnership of equals. A partnership of friends”.

So hopelessly brainwashed.

Then, in April 2018 at a similar meeting to celebrate the regime’s 70th anniversary Williamson waxed lyrical describing Israel as a “light unto the nations” and adding that not only do Israel and Britain face shared security threats, “our relationship is underpinned by a shared sense of values: justice, compassion, tolerance”. He emphasised that Israel is a “liberal, free and exciting country” and that the UK-Israel relationship is the “cornerstone of so much of what we do in the Middle East”.

Breaching the Ministerial Code?

But Gavin Williamson is not the only Government minister to threaten our universities in this crude manner. A year ago Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick vowed to take action against universities and “parts of local government” who, he said, had become “corrupted” by anti-Semitism. He directed his attack on the universities who receive public money but “choose not to accept our IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and use it when considering matters such as disciplinary procedures”.

Writing in the Sunday Express, he added: “I will use my position as Secretary of State to write to all universities and local authorities to insist that they adopt the IHRA definition at the earliest opportunity.

“I expect them to confirm to me when they do so. Failure to act in this regard is unacceptable and I will be picking up the phone to Vice Chancellors and local government leaders to press for action, if none is forthcoming.”

According to Wikipedia Jenrick’s wife was born in Israel and their children are brought up in the Jewish faith. He told the Board of Deputies he would not tolerate local authority approved BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaigns against those profiteering from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. “Local authorities should not be wasting time and taxpayer’s money by dabbling in foreign policy or pursuing anti-Israel political obsessions, but instead focusing on delivering first class local public services.” The same could be said of his colleague Williamson’s pro-Israel obsession – and his own – when they should be getting on with governing Britain, but of course they are exempt from their own rules.

Both Jenrick and Williamson appear to fall foul of the Ministerial Code. The first two paragraphs are enough to banish them to outer darkness, one would have thought.

1.1 Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.

1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. Working relationships…. should be proper and appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the   Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.

Elsewhere the Code decrees that “ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests” and they are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life. The Principle of Integrity states that holders of public office “must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence their work”.

That suggests to me they ought to be slung out on their ear and never allowed near the levers of power again. But nobody in government is principled enough or has the balls to do it.

What do you think?

More on the Anti-Semitism Scam: Jewish Students Get Protected Status

By Philip Giraldi

Source

boy 1235707 1280 ea8d3

In both the United States and Europe there has been an increase in the passage of laws that are intended to protect Jews. Indeed, one might say that one of the few growth industries in Donald Trump’s United States has been the protection of Jewish citizens and their property from a largely contrived wave of anti-Semitism that is allegedly sweeping the nation. Even while potentially catastrophic developments both in the Middle East and the United States continue to unfold, the threat of anti-Semitism continues to find its way into much of the news cycle in the mainstream media.

A survey conducted last month in all fifty states was released with the headline “First-Ever 50-State Survey On Holocaust Knowledge Of American Millennials And Gen Z Reveals Shocking Results. Disturbing Findings Reveal Significant Number Of Millennials And Gen Z Can’t Name A Single Concentration Camp Or Ghetto, Believe That Two Million Or Fewer Jews Were Killed And A Concerning Percentage Believe That Jews Caused The Holocaust.”

The survey is based on the premise that detailed knowledge of the so-called holocaust should be an essential part of everyone’s education. Currently, 12 states already require holocaust instruction in their public school curricula, though that includes five of the six biggest states, and recently passed federal legislation will eventually fund holocaust education everywhere in the U.S.  But, of course, the real back story that one must not mention is that the standard holocaust narrative is at least as much fiction as fact and it is employed regularly to create special benefits and protections for both Jews in general and also for the State of Israel. That is why the usual sources in the media become outraged whenever it seems that the propaganda is not effective.

The ignorance of the holocaust story inevitably received wide play in the mainstream media but there are a number of things that all Americans should know about the anti-Semitism hysteria that drives the process. First of all, the extent to which there is actual anti-Semitism and the background to many of the incidents has been deliberately distorted or even ignored by the press and by the government at all levels. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews for either their religion or their ethnicity, but many of the so-called anti-Semitic incidents are actually related to the policies advanced by the state of Israel. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which have a vested interest in keeping the number of anti-Semitic incidents high, deliberately conflate the two issues in their reports.

In its 2018 report, ADL reported “1,879 acts,” in the United States during the course of the year. It is not a particularly large number given the size and population of the U.S. and also with respect to what is included. There were certainly some physical attacks, including two shooting incidents at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, but most of the incidents were much less kinetic, including shouting and name calling on university campuses between groups supportive of and opposed to Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

Europe is way ahead of the game when it comes to punishing so-called holocaust denial or anti-Semitism, which now includes any criticism of Jews and/or of Israel. As one critic put it, Europeans generally can exercise something like free speech, but the speech is limited by certain rules that must be observed. Three weeks ago, the French nationalist writer and critic of Jewish power Hervé Ryssen was jailed for the fifth time for the crime of “hate speech.” He faces up to 17 months in prison for having been found guilty of “…insult, provocation, and public defamation due to origin, ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion.” In 2016 he was imprisoned for 5 months, in 2017 for 6 months and in 2018 for one year on similar charges. He also had to pay a 2000 Euros fine to the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism. In January 2020, Ryssen was found guilty of “contesting the existence of crimes against humanity,” i.e. questioning the so-called holocaust which labels him as a négationniste, a “holocaust denier.”

Ryssen has written numerous books on Jewish power in Europe and on Israel. His scholarship has rarely been questioned, but his willingness to speak out sometimes boldly on issues that are forbidden has put him in prison more often than not. Curiously, the French law against vilifying ethnic groups and religions has de facto only rarely been applied to protecting either Christians or Muslims. Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo continues to “blaspheme” against both religions without any intervention from the authorities, but it is careful not to make fun of Jews.

The United States is clearly moving in the direction of France, at least insofar as the Jewish community and Israel are concerned. But it is also refreshing to note that a revived progressive wing of the Democratic Party is engaging in a bit of pushback. Three weeks ago, 162 Democratic congressmen plus one Republican and one independent actually voted against an amendment intended to “Protect Jewish Students from Antisemitism at School.”

The vote took place on Sept. 16th, and was over a Republican proposed amendment to the  Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (H.R.2574). The amendment designated anti-Semitism to be a form of discrimination included in the bill and would allow private citizens to file lawsuits claiming damages under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VI, focusing particularly on education programs. In spite of the considerable level of opposition, unfortunately the amendment still passed by a vote of 255 to 164.

According to the Concerned Women for America  (CWA), a group that lobbied for the added language, “The amendment ensures that recipients of federal education funding act against anti-Semitism in our communities. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) on college campuses is one of the ways such discrimination is being displayed.” The bill allows suits directed against any program receiving federal money if it can be claimed that one is the victim of discriminatory practices that negatively affect a protected class more than another class. Previously, the protected classes were identified as “race, color, or national origin,” but Jews and, by extension, Israel are now also protected. The specific additional language that was inserted was: “In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.”

In practice, the new legislation will mean that Jewish students or their families or proxies can use Civil Rights legislation to sue educational institutions if they are made uncomfortable by the presence of critics of Israel. The real targets are groups like BDS, which have obtained some traction on university campuses and have been targeted by both the Israeli government and domestic Israel Lobby organizations. But, of course, the real danger is that once protected status is granted to one chosen group that promotes the interests of a foreign government there is no control over how “hate speech” will be defined and the consequences for American fundamental liberties will be catastrophic, moving far closer to the European model of freedom limited by “rules.”

A Stroke of Genius

A Stroke of Genius

October 02, 2020

by Jimmie Moglia for the Saker Blog

It takes strength, endurance, resignation and stomach to like Donald Trump. Not for what he actually is. Under the pen of Alexandre Dumas, for example, Trump may even appear as a not-dislikable Yankee D’Artagnan of sorts. Maybe with less finesse than the original musketeer, whose contained yet French swaggering captivated millions of readers, when reading was still ‘cool’.

Rather for some infamous things Trump did and for some unspeakable people he has endorsed or surrounded himself with.

As for things evil, I’ll refer, for one, to the disgraceful delivery of the stolen Golan Heights to the Zionist entity – proving that before the Arabs’ complaints were to be finally dismissed, all remedy should be hopeless.

The other is the treatment and characterization of Venezuela. Some words, in time, are debased by vulgar application, and can be no longer heard without the involuntary recollection of unpleasing images. Such is the case of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘socialism’ uttered by Trump and his minions.

This is no place for platitudes about socialism, but using ‘socialism’ as an excuse to strangle Venezuela is yet an atrocious misuse of language and thought. For it forces Venezuelans to see Americans as strangers to whom Venezuelan life is indifferent, or enemies, for whom Venezuelans’ deaths are desirable.

As for Trump’s associated detestable characters there is only the embarrassment of choice. Elliott Abrams, for one, the disgust of whom arises from the revival of images he is commonly associated with, notably the Nicaraguan ‘Contras’ campaign, for which he was actually tried and condemned as one who has committed a crime. In other words a criminal.

Besides, Abrams is the perfect live embodiment of the Merchant of Venice, seeing whom a protagonist in the play exclaims, “Here comes the devil, in the likeness of a (term and characterization avoided for they may be disturbing to some readers).”

On a related subject, I read recently that Jewish financiers and academics are developing artificial intelligence in order to ceaselessly scan the Internet for “hidden anti-Semitism on social media.”

The Times of Britain reports, “Workers on the “Decoding Anti-Semitism Project” will write algorithms to find codes such as “Juice” instead of “Jews” and look for anti-Jewish narratives, conspiracy theories and stereotypes that are harder to detect automatically than explicit racism. They hope to develop a tool that can scan websites and social media profiles for implicit anti-Semitism.”

A strange range of Jews and European crypto-academic characters staff this curious venture. The prize is several million euros in grants, donated by the German-Jewish Alfred Landecker Foundation, an NGO with strings that suggest both comedy and tragedy.

Who established the Alfred Landecker Foundation? The Reimann family, German billionaires who own controlling stakes in Krispy Kreme, Dr. Pepper and other major players in the goy-poisoning food-market. The Reimanns have pledged 250 million euros during the next 10 years.

The family is not Jewish, but was targeted for “reparations” by sundry Jewish “defense bodies.” It began last year when some influential Jewish journalists and organizations triggered an international public relations blackmail campaign against the Reimanns. For, apparently, there were some skeletons in the Reimanns’ National Socialist past.

Devra First, for example, a Jewish journalist at the Boston Globe, led one of the early attacks with an article titled, “I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?” It is easy to predict that she may not drink the coffee but keep the money.

As for the “Decoding Anti-Semitism Project,” given the massive Zionist successful fight against free speech, the reader can easily imagine and construe the consequences.

But I digress. Another obnoxious, despicable and ridicule character is the hyper-buffoon Juan Guaidó, whom most of my readers would not probably even trust to park their car – a veritable master at making a complete ass of himself worldwide. For example, by believing that two pranksters posing as the President of Switzerland and his interpreter asked his ‘permission’ to transfer Venezuelan government money held in Swizerland to Guaìdo’s personal Swiss bank account. And to whom Guaidó pledged his help in promoting a color revolution in the Russian Federation to replace Putin with Navalny.

But returning to Trump, we may set all of the above apart, when recognizing genius. For such I rate his having made himself recognized as Covid-19 positive (along with his wife). Even if he (and supposedly she) are asymptomatic and apparently in good health.

For, by doing so, he may avoid the traps inherent in the patently pitiful debates. He will equally avoid the violent (BLM, Antifa) predicted outbreaks associated with his public presence, and maybe even direct terrorist assaults.

Furthermore, he will be able to wage his electoral campaign from the White House, maybe in front of the fireplace (FD Roosevelt style). While his enemies will be inherently prevented from criticism of the venue and the reason thereof.

After all they vehemently maligned him for having been ‘soft’ on Covid. Therefore they cannot certainly expect him to violate the quarantine, risking to infect all he comes in contact with. And by appearing in TV in good health, he may actually and factually counterbalance the apocalyptic narratives of the mainstream media and associates.

Furthermore, his enemies cannot even utter the suspicion that he is simulating the malady. For if the suspicion arose that the ‘swabs’ can be a tool for manipulation, liable to yield unreliable or even purposely inaccurate answers, the whole construct would begin to creak.

Hence Trump, for once, has defeated his enemies by using their very tools.

All of the above does not change the reality that – even assuming no fraud in the elections, given the documented ease of deception without a user-registration system – the Americans will still be compelled to chose the lesser of two evils, commonly known as the evil of two lessers.

Apocalypse Now!

 BY GILAD ATZMON

apocalypse now.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon*

“Blessed is the one who always trembles before God, but whoever hardens their heart falls into trouble.” (Proverbs 28:14)

‘Blessed is the one who always trembles before Covid19, but whoever fails to put a facemask falls into trouble.’ (CDC 2020)

For two decades, we, the people who happen to dwell on this planet, have been subjected to repeated apocalyptic hysteria. Following 9/11 we were taken into a world war against Islam as the ‘Islamists,’ we were told by our Neocon masters, were ‘intending to eradicate our civilization.’ Shortly after, the economic bubble collapsed. We were prepared for global poverty. Even as we recovered from the economic turmoil, global warming was threatening to grill us alive or maybe flush us into the ocean. In between all of those catastrophic scenarios, Isis was also a global existential threat and then came Covid-19.

Being repeatedly globally, universally and collectively terrified of an ‘imminent apocalyptic catastrophe’ is a new phenomenon. It is inherently tied to the rise of the global economy, global markets and global corporations. It may imply that we are already subject to the rule of an elusive global power whose characteristics and mode of operation are yet to be unveiled let alone discussed. It may even be that the true nature of that global power is mysterious even to itself. But the practical meaning of such a ‘new order’ and its impact on the world is there for all to see.

In theory, at least, the fear of a ‘global pogrom’ or ‘universal holocaust’ is supposed to unite us. It is designed to show us that we don’t stand a chance to fight or win alone, as individuals, as tribes, as classes, as a nation or as a continent. If we want to survive both individually as well as a human race, we are told we must act at once and as one people and obey a certain set of rules.

In the late 19th and the early 20th centuries Marxism also promised to unite us globally, make us a fist of resistance in the name of worldwide proletarian revolution. At present, it is actually the post-Marxists who break us into biologically driven identitarian fragments, and it is global capitalism and some odd tycoons who unite us by means of global fear. The threat of global apocalypse is there to undermine: the national state, local markets, local manufacturing, the old elites, the old traditions and any other recognized hegemonic setting. From a globalist perspective, it is hard not to see a certain continuum between the Marxist global prophecy and the current globalist apocalyptic ‘reality.’

In practice, things often work differently. As powerful and convincing as our apocalyptic clerics happen to be, often the reality on the ground contradicts the global prophecy. Some states were not convinced by the Neocon fantasy and refused to join the ‘war against Islam’ failing to see Islam or Muslims as a global threat. US president Trump learned recently that his plan to defeat Iran by means of sanctions on behalf of Zion may not be an easy task. Similarly, a few world leaders aren’t convinced that the planet is getting warmer (peculiarly enough, the name Trump comes to mind again). And when the current Corona pandemic started, we noticed what was the opposite of global unity. Instead, we saw borders closing down and nationalist lines resurfacing. In March, Italy was left alone to face its crisis and the EU returned to a collection of states. In the USA we see similar fragmentation among the states. Corona has become a political battle zone. It emphasizes difference, it acts to separate rather than unites us.

However new to us is the attempt to keep us under the threat of a constant ‘universal holocaust,’ such a threat isn’t new to everybody.

In my first non-fiction book, The Wandering Who, I defined a peculiar but common, mental condition. I argued that while most people are familiar with the notion of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Post TSD) – a stressful condition caused by a real or imaginary past event, it seemed to me that many self identified Jews often manifest symptoms of stress which I defined as Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder (Pre TSD). In the case of Pre TSD a human subject is tormented by the phantasy of an imaginary catastrophic event in the future. This destructive fantasy evolves into trauma that may manifest in emotionally driven irrational conduct. Pre TSD often operates as a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’- the condition in which ‘prediction’ becomes reality simply because the person who believes it adopts certain behavioral patterns that result in the fulfilment of his belief.

In ‘The Wandering Who’ I argued that many disasters in Jewish history were the direct outcome of Pre TSD. It is for instance, easy to point out that the ‘fear of anti-Semitism’ and the suppressive actions that are pushed by Jewish institutions often lead to a sharp rise in antagonism towards different aspects of Jewish politics, culture, ideology and history. Similarly, the Jewish State’s phantasmic fear of Iran’s nuclear armament that is followed by endless Israeli attacks on Iranian interests in the region deliver a clear message to Iran and every other nation in the region that a failure to possess a substantial arsenal of WMD as a means of the deterrence is, all but a suicidal act. In reality, Iran’s advanced missile technology (both precision and ballistic) is a direct outcome of Israeli Pre TSD. It is the Israeli Pre TSD that made Iran into a regional superpower that endangers Israel (i.e. self-fulfilling prophecy’).

But Israel is not alone. By the time we landed on Covid 19, Pre TSD was no longer a ‘Jewish symptom.’ Pre TSD had become a universal global condition.

Religion of Fear

Fear and fearfulness of one’s deity, is at the heart Judaic existence. ‘Fearful Jew’ (Yehudi Hared, חרד יהודי) is how the Hebrew language refers to an orthodox Jew. Anxiety is at the root of the Judaic thought. The Hebraic expression attributed to a pious Jew is ‘heaven dreading man’ (Ish Yare Shamayim, מייםש ירא איש ). The idea that a good Jew is a trembled Jew is expressed in its clearest form in Proverbs 28:14 “Blessed is the one who always trembles before God.” Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki 1040 – 1105), acclaimed for his ability to present the basic meaning of Biblical text in a concise and lucid fashion summarizes the proverb as follows: “Always (be) afraid – worry about punishment , thus moving away from transgression.”

Why do the Jews dread their God? Is it because the God of the Old Testament can easily outdo Quentin Tarantino’s most barbaric scenes? Is it because they know that the God of the Ten Plagues of Egypt wouldn’t stand a chance in The Hague? Is it because they know that their deity character is a jealous God (“For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”: Exodus 34:14)? Agnostic critics of Judaic thought may even push it further and wonder why the Jews bothered to invent such a jealous God. But it can hardly be denied that the Jews and their not so merciful deity have managed to survive for three millennia while other sophisticated and superior civilizations have, one after another, disappeared into oblivion. Surely, in terms of its survival strategy, Judaism as a precept has managed to prevail and sustain itself against all odds.

The Athens vs. Jerusalem dialectical battle serves to untangle the meaning of the current apocalyptic era and throw light on the above. In Western cultural ethos, Athens stands for the city of philosophy, the birthplace of science, the poetic and tragedy. Jerusalem is the city of revelation. The birthplace of legalism (Halacha, Mitzvoth) and strict obedience. Athens teaches you how to think for yourself. Jerusalem tells us what to say and what never to think about. Before I continue I would like to reiterate that the philosophical context in which I discuss Jerusalem and Athens does not point at a split between ‘Jews and gentiles’ as Christianity and Islam are also suffused with legalistic Jerusalemite elements. Jerusalem vs. Athens is a dialectic battle between two forms of cognition that historically often do not agree with each other. We are at the midst of such a dramatic point in history.

Like the orthodox Jew who is in constant dread of his own God, the rest of us are expected to be mobilized by different narratives of colossal universal catastrophes, be it ‘Islamism,’ global warming or Covid19. Our status in society, as in the proverb (verse 28:14) is defined by the amount of fearfulness we are willing to manifest. The facemask has become our universal ‘skullcap.’ It is a symbolic identifier of our adherence to the current politics of ‘Corona menace.’ The orthodox Germophobes cover their bodies with the latest chemical warfare gear, they wash their hands with the most advanced alcogel every two minutes, they may reach libidinal climax by the act of mitigation. Ordinary believers are slightly more relaxed. They cover their faces with light paper masks. The Atheists, the Athenians, the Agnostics and the Pagans also wear facemasks, as they are ordered to do by law, but often stick their noses out either as an act of protest or just to enjoy the rare sensation of fresh air.

We observe that those who express any doubts about the official 9/11 narrative, global warming hysteria or Covid 19 are quickly labelled by the media as ‘rightwing,’ ‘Nazis,’ Conspiracy Theorists and antisemites. And we should know why: those who question the current apocalyptic religions interfere with our ‘new monotheistic Jerusalemite order’ — they think for themselves. They are Athenian or even ‘worse,’ a bunch of Pagans.

Torah and Mitzvoth

It is a crucial question, how is Jerusalem sustained throughout history as the existence of conditions of constant fear contradict the pleasure principle*? Why would the followers of Judaism agree to follow such an abusive religion? Is it possible that followers actually enjoy being scared of their chosen not-so-merciful deity character? I believe that the most insightful answers to this were given by the genius Israeli scholar and professor, Yeshayahu Leibowitz RIP..

Leibowitz was a rare polymath. He was a scientist as well as a philosopher and he was also a pious orthodox Jew who inspired generations of Jewish and Israeli thinkers and intellectuals in general.

For Leibowitz, as for Maimonides, central to Jewish monotheism is the acceptance of the radical transcendence of God. The Jewish God is defined by its incomprehensible and inaccessible nature. Adopting a Kantian manner of thought, Leibowitz accepts that the Jewish God transcends beyond the spatio-temporal and therefore cannot be realised in terms of human experience as the human cognition of reality is bound by categories of space and time.

If God is a radical transcendental entity inherently foreign to human experience what is left to the Jew? What do the Jews believe in? Leibowitz’ answer is fascinating yet simple: throughout history, at least until the emancipation of European Jewry, Judaism was defined through strict adherence to Jewish mitzvoth, commandments of the Torah itself. For Leibowitz, Judaism is the story of the development of mitzvoth, the all encompassing system of Jewish law. Judaism is basically a legal apparatus.

One may wonder then at what is the meaning of Judaic belief. Leibowitz answer: It is the halakhic (legalistic) observance that constitutes the faith and this faith cannot be identified independently of its practice. Stated another way, Judaism is a form of strict observance and it is those rituals that constitute the faith.

For Leibowitz, to be a Jew was to accept the “burden of Torah and Mitzvoth.” To be a Jew, is to surrender, to do first and ask later, to obey blindly. To be a Jew is not to ‘believe in God’ voluntarily but to accept Maimonides’ prescription that belief in God is actually the ‘first commandment,’ out of 613 Mitzvoth (Maimonides commandment #:1 The first mitzvah is to believe in the Divinity: to believe that there is a cause and a reason, which is the Maker of all creations. As The Exalted One has said: “I am the G-d, your G-d”)

As such, Judaism is fundamentally different from both Isalm and Christianity. While in Christianity and Islam the belief in God is a voluntary act, in Judaism the ‘belief’ itself is a matter of a decree. It is an act of ‘observance,’ a practice, an affirmation by means of total subservience.

Leibowitz further observed that “Emancipation from the bondage of nature can only be brought about by the religion of Mitzvoth.” This shocking observation of the Judaic code may explain why Orthodox Judaism didn’t participate or contribute to the development of science, philosophy or Western thought. Jews were happy to be ‘emancipated from nature’ as Leibowitz describes it, immersing themselves in Torah and Mitzvoth. They left science, math, medicine, philosophy and the arts to the ‘goyim.’ It was only at the time Jewish emancipation in Europe that assimilated Jews started to familiarise themselves with Western thinking and soon after involved themselves in these fields.

Leibowitz has told us all we need to know about Covid 19 and the other apocalyptic Jerusalemite faiths that have too often imposed themselves on us. Questioning global warming, doubting 911, refusing to see Islam as a global menace and doubting, literally, anything they tell us about Covid19 will get you labeled as ‘rightwing,’ ‘Neonazi’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ because these discourses are structurally set as Jerusalemite apparatuses. As in Leibowitz’s reading of Judaism’s ethos, ‘Emancipation from the bondage of Covid 19 can only be brought about by the religion of Lockdown and Mitigation.’ We are dealing with a perception that is sustained by strict observance as opposed to a search for logos. It demands the performance of blind ‘beliefs’ that are sustained by practice and are defined by defiance of reason and curiosity. In these new global Jerusalemite apocalyptic religions, thought police algorithms set by media companies replace the traditional orthodox rabbinical vetting of that which we are allowed to say and that which we are not even entitled to think for ourselves.

Skullcap vs. Facemask

Jewish men are required to cover their heads. The Talmud states, “cover your head in order that the fear of heaven may be upon you.” A head covering acts as a symbolic identifier that displays its wearer’s subscription to belief in the Jewish God. This is how the Jewish male admits the concept of “honouring (the Jewish) God.”

The theological rationale behind the Jewish skullcap is flimsy. If God knows ‘what’ is in your heart’ as the Torah keeps repeating, there is no reason to try to deceive the Almighty by hiding your true thoughts under a skullcap. Some Rabbis in Jewish history have admitted that there is indeed a slight theological problem entangled with the skullcap as it makes the Jewish male a master over the Jewish God as the Jewish male can apparently fool God simply by covering his head.

Indeed, more than just one Rabbi contributed to the shift in the meaning of the Jewish skullcap. They decided that the skullcap is there to distinguish between Jews and the rest of humanity. The Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, ruled at one stage that skullcaps should be worn to show affiliation with the religiously observant community. The skullcap as such, has little to do with God, it acts as a Jewish symbolic identifier; it differentiates the Jew from the Goy. It operates as a facemask within the Covid 19 religion. While scientists may agree or disagree how useful the facemask is in preventing the spread of Covid 19, the wearing of the mask confirms that you adhere to the Covid19 belief whether you agree with it or not. The wearing of the facemask makes clear that ‘blessed you are trembled before Corona.’

A few final observations are crucial in light of the above. And I am sure these observations won’t make me popular.

Since Islam and Christianity are peppered with Jerusalemite patterns of legalistic structures, it is unlikely that Islam or Christianity have the powers to emancipate us from the current tsunami of crude apocalyptic religions. This task may be left to Pagans, Agnostics and Athenians, people who extend beyond banal binaries and instead bond with the human spirit and the search for the meaning of Being. This may explain the popularity of dissenting voices like Alexander Dugin, David Icke and outlets like Unz Review and London Real that, although subject to the most restrictive authoritarian measures, only become more popular. It is because they resemble the Hebrew prophets, Jesus and Spinoza. It is true that questions to do with Being in the World are not popular in Jerusalem but history remembers Jesus, Spinoza and Heidegger, it pays zero attention to the Jerusalemites and rabbis who tried to silence them.

This also explains why Rabbinical Jews do not take Covid19 very seriously. Jews have been trembling in front of their God for 3000 years. It has worked just fine, there is no reason for them to jump into new apocalyptic regimes that clumsily attempt to clone their own. Let Covid19 run for a few millennia, let Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates assemble their Corona like ‘Torah and Mitzvoth’ before Orthodox Jews consider it as a serious candidate in their deity contest.

* Pleasure Principle – In Freudian psychoanalysis refers to the instinctive seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain to satisfy biological and psychological needs.

*Published originally on: www.unz.com

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Who Buys This Phony ‘Anti-Semitism’ Smear Language?

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

If you support the genuine inheritors of the Holy Land you’re ‘pro-Semitic’.
smear weapon 28d34

Semites are a language group not a religious group. They spoke (and still do) Semitic languages, especially the Canaanite and later Aramaic dialects of Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. 

The Western world today is seething with accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’, a threatening term with nasty connotations. Before 1879 nobody had heard of ‘anti-Semitism’ although hard feelings towards Jews as a religious group had existed for many centuries. One thinks immediately of the atrocities of the first Crusades (1096), the massacre at York in 1190, and the expulsion of Jews from England by Edward I in 1290 (only to be allowed back in 1657 by Oliver Cromwell). But discrimination against Jews existed long before, in various countries and for various reasons.

Then along came a German agitator and journalist, Wilhelm Marr, who coined the expression ‘anti-Semitism’ knowing full well that it embraced all Semitic peoples including Hebrews, Arabs and Christians of the Holy Land. It wasn’t long before it was twisted to become a metaphor for hostility only toward Jews based on a belief that they sought national and even world power. More recently Holocaust denial and criticism of the state of Israel’s vile behaviour have been considered anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionism too is claimed to be anti-Semitic because it singles out Jewish national aspirations as illegitimate and a racist endeavour. Which of course they are, as Israel’s recently enacted nation state laws prove.

Indeed, some hardcore Israel flag wavers regard any pro-Palestinian, pro-Syrian or pro-Lebanese sentiments to be anti-Semitic even though those peoples are constantly victims of Israeli military aggression.

A catch-all smear weapon

The hijacking of the term anti-Semitism and its fraudulent conversion into a propaganda tool for defending the Zionist Project has enabled brazen attacks on our rights to free speech and attempts to shut down peaceful debate on Israel’s crimes. The word anti-Semitism, as now used, is a distortion of language and a deliberate misnomer larded with fear and trembling for those touched by it. This prompted Miko Peled, the Israeli general’s son, to warn a Labour Party conference that “they are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn… the reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument…”

And so they did. Jeremy Corbyn, a genuine anti-racist, critic of Israel and champion of Palestinian rights, was soon gone. He was the only British leader who might have reduced Israel’s sinister influence on UK policy. But his Labour Party, like the cowards they are, surrendered to Israel lobby pressure and helped bring him down. Israel’s pimps at Westminster and in local parties across the country were able to chalk up a famous victory.

They even managed to force the Party to adopt the discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and incorporate it into the Party’s code of conduct. The new leader is their obedient stooge. He has publicly bent the knee, tugged the forelock.

 Who has the claim?

However, it has been shown that most Jews today are not descended from the ancient Israelites at all. For example, research by Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, published by the Oxford University Press in 2012 on behalf of the Society of Molecular Biology and Evolution, found the Khazarian Hypothesis to be scientifically correct, meaning that most Jews are Khazars and confirming what some scholars had been saying. The Khazarians converted to Talmudic Judaism in the 8th Century and were never in ancient Israel.

No doubt these finding will be challenged by Zionist adherents till the end of time. But DNA research suggests that no more than 2 per cent of Jews in present-day Israel are actually Israelites. So, even if you believe the myth that God gave the land to the Israelites, He certainly didn’t give it to Netanyahu, Lieberman and the other East European thugs who infiltrated the Holy Land and now run the apartheid regime. It seems the Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) have more Israelite blood. They are the true Semites.

As for Zionists’ preposterous claim to exclusive sovereignty over Jerusalem, the city was at least 2000 years old and an established fortification when King David captured it. Jerusalem dates back some 5000 years and the name is likely derived from Uru-Shalem, meaning “founded by Shalem”, the Canaanite God of Dusk.

In its ‘City of David’ form Jerusalem lasted less than 80 years. In 928BC the Kingdom divided into Israel and Judah with Jerusalem the capital of Judah, and in 597BC the Babylonians conquered it. Ten years later in a second siege the city was largely destroyed including Solomon’s temple. The Jews recaptured it in 164BC but finally lost it to the Roman Empire in 63BC. A Christian (Crusader) kingdom of Jerusalem existed from 1099 to 1291 but held the city for only 101 of those years. Before the present-day shambles, cooked up by Balfour and stoked by the US, the Jews had controlled Jerusalem for around 500 years, say historians – small beer compared to the 1,277 years it was subsequently ruled by Muslims and the 2000 years, or thereabouts, it originally belonged to the Canaanites.

Counter-measure

Since the three main Semitic faiths – Judaism, Islam and Christianity – all have historical claims to Jerusalem and a presence there, and masses of non-Semitic believers around the world also wish to visit the holy places, the best solution seems to be the one recommended by United Nations General Assembly resolutions 181 and 194: that Jerusalem is made a corpus separatum, an open city administered by an international regime or the UN itself. Why this hasn’t been implemented isn’t clear. We’ve seen the abominable discrimination inflicted on Palestinian Muslims and Christians by Israel since seizing control of Jerusalem.

The other side could play word games too – and with more honesty. Anti-Semitism has been fashioned by the Zionists into a catch-all smear weapon. What if pro-Palestinian groups and the BDS movement declared themselves (in correct parlance) to be ‘pro-Semitic’, i.e. supportive of all those with genuine ancestral links to the ancient Holy Land and entitled to live there in freedom?

They could coin a new expression just like Marr and establish it through usage.

The Last Zionist

 BY GILAD ATZMON

The Last Zionist.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Source: https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-last-zionist/

In his book Memories, the first Israeli PM and pragmatic early Zionist, David Ben Gurion writes about his early years in Płońsk, Poland.

“For many of us, anti-Semitic feeling had little to do with our (Zionist) dedication. I personally never suffered anti-Semitic persecution. Płońsk was remarkably free of it… There were three main communities: Russians, Jews and Poles. … The number of Jews and Poles in the city were roughly equal, about five thousand each. The Jews, however, formed a compact, centralized group occupying the innermost districts whilst the Poles were more scattered, living in outlying areas and shading off into the peasantry. Consequently, when a gang of Jewish boys met a Polish gang the latter would almost inevitably represent a single suburb and thus be poorer in fighting potential than the Jews who even if their numbers were initially fewer could quickly call on reinforcements from the entire quarter. Far from being afraid of them (the goyim), they were rather afraid of us (the Jews). In general, however, relations were amicable, though distant.” (Memoirs: David Ben-Gurion (1970), p. 36)

Ben Gurion is very explicit when describing the balance of power between Jews and Poles in his town in the early days of the 20th century. “Far from being afraid of them, they were rather afraid of us (the Jews).”

Jews were indeed very powerful in Poland in the first years of the 20th century. The Jewish socialist party, the Bund, was a leading political force in the 1905 Revolution particularly in the Polish areas of the Russian empire. In the early stages of that Revolution, the Bund’s military wing was the strongest revolutionary force in Western Russia.

The Vow, the Bund’s anthem didn’t leave much room for imagination, it declared war and practically sentenced to death those who didn’t fit with their political agenda:

“We swear our stalwart hate persists,
Of those who rob and kill the poor:
The Tsar, the masters, capitalists.
Our vengeance will be swift and sure.
So swear together to live or die!”

“To wage the holy war we vow,
Until right triumphs over wrong.
No Midas, master, noble now –
The humble equal to the strong.
So swear together to live or die!”

The Bund was extremely confident of its power. In the autumn of 1933 it issued a call to the Polish public to boycott goods from Germany in protest of Hitler and the NSDAP. In December 1938 and January 1939, in the last Polish municipal elections before the start of WWII, the Bund received the largest segment of the Jewish vote. In 89 towns, one-third elected Bund majorities. In Warsaw, the Bund won 61.7% of the votes cast for Jewish parties, taking 17 of the 20 municipal council seats won by Jewish parties. In Łódź the Bund won 57.4% (11 of 17 seats won by Jewish parties).

We now know that this sense of victorious Jewish empowerment ended shortly after these elections. The East European and Polish Jewish communities suffered greatly during WWII. The Bund was completely wiped out during the war. For one reason or another and, as problematic as it may be for some, at least in the early stages of the war, some Poles, Ukrainians and other East European nationalists saw the Nazis as their ‘liberators.’ They apparently weren’t blind to the reality that was depicted by Ben Gurion.

This sense of Jewish political and social empowerment that is portrayed in Ben Gurion’s Memories and in the story of the Bund created a problematic pattern, as it clearly led to some tragic consequences.

In his conclusive work on the Holocaust, Jewish historian David Cesarani delved briefly into the work of the CV, (Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens – the central association of German citizens of the Jewish faith).

It would be a crude act of denial to fail to see the overwhelming similarity between the CV that was formed in 1893 and the likes of the ADL, SPLCCRIFthe BOD and the CAA. Cesarani writes about the CV that it was formed “to combat the lies propagated by anti-Semites and oppose them when they stood for election.” Clearly, Jeremy CorbynBernie Sanders and Cynthia McKinney weren’t the first politicians to be targeted by dedicated Jewish pressure groups. The CV was using the same tactics over a century ago.

Cesarani continues: “over the next two decades, the CV proved quite effective: suing rabble rousers for defamation, funding candidates pledged to contest anti-Semitism, producing voluminous amounts of educational material about Judaism and Jewish life, and coordinating the activity of sympathetic non-Jews ashamed of prejudice within their communities.” (Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949, David Cesarani pg.10)

Like the ADL and AIPAC in the USA, and the CAA in Britain, the CV saw its popularity amongst Jews grow rapidly. By 1926 more than 60.000 German Jews were amongst its members, however, there is a good reason to believe that the more popular the CV was amongst Jews, the less popular Jews and their politics were to Germans. We can observe that the ADL and CAA are not marching in virgin territory, there is historical documentation that points out that abrasive Jewish pressure politics have, in the past, helped lead to catastrophic consequences.

The Jewish Virtual Library produces a fascinating glimpse into the CV’s activity. In 1934 when the Nazi Party was already in power, the Party made no attempt to conceal its anti Jewish sentiments, yet, the CV, apparently in a state of complete denial, ignored the political shift in Germany and continued to pursue its pressure politics.

Following is a report by the CV from 26 April 1934:

“To the Regional branches:
Central Germany
Rheinland—Westfalia
Northern Germany
Hessen
Eastern Westfalia
Friends from small and middle sized towns have recently complain that songs with coarse anti-Jewish texts are being sung brazenly and provocatively. We intend to officially approach the Reich Ministry and report all these incidents and to address a letter of the board to the SA Chief and Reich Minister Roehm and to the Prussian Secret State Police. A representative of the CV will also raise this matter with the Propaganda Ministry. We therefore ask to report as soon as possible: In what localities such songs are being sung. What songs are being sung. Who is doing the singing.
(signed) Rubenstein.”

This type of a letter is familiar in its format and content from both ADL and CAA press releases targeting popular artists, musicians and politicians.

The point I am trying to make should be obvious. Harassing, terrorising and abusing one’s host nation into submission may produce some results in the short term, however, in the long run, it may not be the best way to fight anti Jewish sentiments. As Jewish history in general and the holocaust in particular prove, it may be the most dangerous path Jews can take.

‘History,’ we are told, ‘never repeats itself.’ Yet, for one reason or another, we are all expected to draw the right lessons from Jewish history. We are to vow ‘never again.’ We are to pledge to fight racism and discrimination.

Most surprising then, that the Jews, at large, never learn from their own past. One wonders, what is it about the ADL, AIPAC, BOD, Crif, CAA and other Jewish organisations that set them on a political path that has proven to be catastrophic?

One possible answer is collective ignorance. It is reasonable to assume that many Jews do not know or understand their own history and instead concentrate, if at all, on Jewish suffering (the holocaust, the inquisition, rise in Antisemitism, pogroms, etc.) rather than attempting to grasp the chain of events that led to such unfortunate consequences. In other words, they fail to see the connection between bad behaviour and antisemitism. This may imply that if things, God forbid, turn sour for American Jewry tomorrow, Jews in the future will not examine the multiple disastrous headlines associated with some prominent American Jews and leading Jewish institutions. Accordingly, they will not see the negative impact of the bad behaviour of such characters as Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell , Ehud Barak, Les Wexner, Harvey Weinstein or George Soros. They will not see the need to examine, let alone explain, the vast over-representation of Jews on NYC’s slumlord list or in America’s worst Ponzi schemes. Jews won’t look into the negative impact of the ADL or the SPLC. Nor will they dare dig into the disastrous impact of Israel and AIPAC on American Foreign Policy. Jews won’t look into these for the same reasons that Jews work hard to prevent everyone, Jews included, from understanding the role of Jews and Jewish institutions in contributing to antisemitism in the Weimar republic or in 19th century Eastern Europe.

Another possible answer is that Jewish political institutions are very sophisticated and far more strategic than we are willing to admit. Perhaps The ADL, the CAA, AIPAC and other Jewish pressure groups actually fully understand Jewish history. They do understand the possible dangerous implications of their actions. However they genuinely believe that constant tension between Jews and their host nations is actually ‘good for the Jews.’ How could it be good for the Jews? It prevents assimilation and unnecessary intermingling. It enforces Jewish identification, it evidently reinforces the importance of Israel and promotes Jewish immigration to and support for the Jewish State.

Another possible answer is more fatalistic. In this Jews do not follow a ‘strategic plan’, nor they are ‘blind to their past.’ They simply can’t do much about their destiny as they are shaped individually and collectively by a unique and persistent tribal cultural-spiritual paradigm. It is this tribal precept that sustains their clannish and exclusionist behavioural mode and also their affinity to biological determinist views.

I guess that it is this last answer that led to the birth of Zionist thought in the late 19th century. Zionism accepted that Jewish diaspora culture and attitude was deeply unhealthy. Early Zionists agreed amongst themselves that it is Jews and their cultural code, rather than the so-called ‘antisemites’ who bring disasters on the Jews. Zionism vowed to ‘civilise’ the Jews by means of a ‘homecoming’. It promised to make them “people like all other people.”

Theodor Herzl (1860 –1904) the author of political Zionism who is regarded by Jews and Israelis as Zionism’s forefather, didn’t pull his punches in his attitude to Diaspora Jewry. “The wealthy Jews” Herzl wrote, “control the world, in their hands lies the fate of governments and nations. They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich.” Theodor Herzl, Deutsche Zeitung 4 min’ 47 sec’ in the following Hebrew video:

Herzl didn’t refer to AIPACADLSoros or the CAA. He didn’t know about Corbyn, Dershowitz, Sanders or Epstein and his Lolita Express’ long list of passengers. Yet Herzl managed to identify a very problematic Jewish identitarian pattern which he pledged to alter by means of a ‘Zionist metamorphosis.’

A prime Labour Zionist ideologist, A.D. Gordon (1856 –1922) referred to his brethren as ‘a parasitic people’ who have “no roots in the soil.” Like Herzl, Gordon also believed that Jews could be re-invented and become proletarians.

Dov Ber Borochov (1881-1917), the leading theoretical Jewish Marxist ideologist who inspired Labour Zionism, was also disgusted by Jewish Diaspora parasitic tendencies. “The enterprising spirit of the Jew is irrepressible. He refuses to remain a proletarian. He will grab at the first opportunity to advance to a higher rung in the social ladder.” (The Economic Development of the Jewish People, Ber Borochov, 1916).

Maybe it is time to admit that early Zionism was a unique and profound instant in Jewish history. It was the only moment in time when Jews were brave enough to look in the mirror and to admit that they were repulsed by what they saw. A similar sense of self-loathing can be detected in sermons of the Biblical prophets, but early Zionism evolved into a powerful Jewish movement. By means of self-loathing it managed to achieve its objectives. It fulfilled its promise to establish a Jewish National homeland in Palestine, even if It did so at the expense of the Palestinian people whose land it plundered. On the face of it, Zionism made the Jews people like all other people, failing to see that all other people weren’t trying to be like all other people but were like themselves.

The first Israelis bought into the ideas of Herzl, Gordon and Borochov. They believed in the possibility of Jewish metamorphosis. But it didn’t take long before the Zionists realised that for Jewishness to survive, Goyim are needed. Why? Because Jewishness is basically different manifestations of choseness, and choseness cannot operate in a vacuum for the same reason that progressives need ‘reactionaries,’ and supremacists need people to look down upon. It didn’t take long for the early Zionists to make the Palestinians and Arabs their new Goyim. It didn’t take more than a few decades for Israeli Jews to give up completely on the dream of a new Hebraic civilisation. By the 1990s Benjamin Netanyahu realised that it was Jewishness that united the Israelis. Israel under his leadership drifted rapidly from the Zionist dream. It morphed safely into a ‘Jewish State.

On a personal note I admit that, like many of my peers, in my early years I bought into the Zionist ethos. I fell in love with the idea of a Jewish nationalist rebirth. It was pretty convenient to see the Biblical kings and prophets as my ‘ancestors.’ My understanding of the Zionist revolutionary impetus was reinforced when I toured around the world as a young musician playing Jewish music in diaspora communities. I realised that I shared very little or nothing at all with those Diaspora Jews and their cultural/political ethos. I guess that I took the Zionist dream very seriously, I vowed to become a nice, ethical human being. By the time my project was more or less accomplished, I gathered that I, as a nice adult, was basically an ordinary goy like all other goyim, I was a Jew no more.

The absurdity here is that together with just a few others including: Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Israel Shamir, Israel Shachak, Shlomo Sand, I am probably amongst the last of the Zionists. I guess that we are the few who managed to unshackle themselves, to break out of the ghetto walls and to cross the rough sea between Jerusalem and Athens.


Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Donate

Empires and their puppets including Israel will eventually fall: “Free Gaza Movement” co-founder Greta Berlin

Preview in new tab(opens in a new tab)

June 8, 2020 – 12:45
Berlin likens the situation in the occupied Palestinian lands to South Africa under the apartheid regime which will finally be a country for all citizens including Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
 “This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims,” Berlin, an author and activist, tells the Tehran Times in an exclusive interview:  
This is the text of the interview:
1: Madame Greta Berlin, please tell us what Israel has achieved after 72 years since its establishment. Has it succeeded to win legitimacy?
 A: Israel has achieved what all white/colonial/racist entities have achieved; subjugating, terrorizing, marginalizing, and stealing from the indigenous population to make an illicit country. It’s no different than the U.S. or Canada or South Africa or Australia. 
Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S.It’s gotten its legitimacy from the very countries who have done the same thing to a population that was already there and perceived as, somehow, being “less human” than the invaders. After 72 years, it’s only legitimate claim to the land of Palestine has been through force, and all empires and their puppets eventually fall. Israel will as well.  
2: How do you analyze the situation inside Israel?
 A: There are three strata inside Israel; Ashkenazi Jews, the white Jews from Europe/Russia, and the U.S. who control power, politics, and money. The second tier is the Sephardic or Arab Jews who were often forced to immigrate to Israel immediately after Israel was founded on the backs of the Palestinians. Once the European Jews drove out 750,000 Palestinians, they needed workers to come and settle in the land they stole. What better place to find them than the Arab Jews of the Middle East and North Africa? If they didn’t want to come peacefully, Mossad made sure they changed their minds. 
After arriving in Israel, they even made up a name for themselves… Mizrahi… so they didn’t have to be called Arab Jews. They are becoming the largest segment of the population, but they have little power. You’ll often see them as members of the IOF, subjugating the third tier in Israel; the Palestinians, who have no power whether they are Israeli citizens or living in the Bantustans of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. 
Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation This kind of situation, like its predecessor in South Africa, will eventually fall apart, and the country will end up being a country for all citizens, Jews/Christians/Muslims. 
 3: Israel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, and Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz are unanimous in this move. Netanyahu has confidently said that annexation will take place within “a few months,” or before the American presidential election in November. What has made Israel behave so unashamedly and intransigently? Don’t you think that an impotent international community or inaction by international bodies have made Tel Aviv so emboldened?
 A: Israel has the biggest gorilla in the room on its side and that’s the U.S. It makes no difference who is President in the U.S., Israel controls Congress, and most politicians will bow to its demands. However, watching what is happening in the U.S., everything is going to change over the next few years, as China emerges triumphant and the U.S. becomes another failed empire like Britain and France. 
Personally, I’m all for a one-state solution and have been for decades. And the sooner, the better for everyone living there. Palestinians already outnumber Jews, and those demographics are only going to improve for Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim.  
 4: You are internationally famous for advocating “justice” for Palestinians since early 1960. What prompted you to highlight the sufferings of the Palestinians?
 A: While in graduate school in 1963, I met and married a Palestinian and had two Palestinian/American children who couldn’t return to Safad, the city where their father was raised, while a Jew from New York City could immigrate there with no other credentials except religion. 
That sense of injustice has challenged me since then. The most outspoken advocate for the rights of marginalized people like Palestinians are often the people who learned the truth after being lied to as children. Like many Americans, I grew up thinking Israel was the victim and Jews had the right to settle in the Holy Land. When I met my husband, and he began telling me the truth of the violent takeover of his land by European terrorist Jews, I became an advocate for justice in Palestine for life.  
 5: You were a co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement and among those brave persons who broke the Gaza siege. Can you please explain your experiences and reactions?
 A: This is such a long story, encompassing two years of planning, buying the boats, sailing to Gaza and so much pain, laughter and delight at finally getting there. It’s a book and a movie and a webinar already. The best way of describing our journey to Gaza is to provide people with these three links.
 6: The U.S. has been blindly defending the illegal behavior of Israel toward Palestinians over the past seven decades. How can such support be justified by a country which proclaims leadership of the free world and defender of democracy and human rights?
 A: The U.S. has never been a defender of democracy and human rights. The country was founded on the genocide of the native population and got rich on the back of slavery. It has had, however, one of the most brilliant PR campaigns of any country in the world. Israel tries to emulate it with many of the same catchphrases such as, “the only democracy in the Middle East.” That’s as big a lie as the U.S. saying it stands for human rights.
However, there is a difference between government propaganda and the citizens of the U.S. Americans, once they wake up, are among the most outstanding advocates for justice for people seeking equal rights, and have put their lives on the line, from the martyrs of the civil rights movement, https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs
to Rachel Corrie in Palestine. They are the one bright and hopeful beacons of light in the U.S., especially this younger generation. I have great hopes they will become like many of us out of the 1960s, advocates for a better world. 
 7: How is it possible that successive Congresses and to a lesser extent administrations remain so biased in favor of Israel? Does it show that the American people who vote for their representatives are indifferent or ignorant toward the situation of the Palestinians?
A: Bribery, Blackmail, and Benjamins. 
It is true, however, that Americans are beginning to wake up to the terrorism of the Israeli occupation. But to be honest, Americans can barely make it from one paycheck to the next and are overwhelmed with problems in their own back yards. 
And the country is huge, with 331 million people, only 20% who even own a passport. Very few of us travel outside the Northern Hemisphere. America and much of its population are isolated and not very well-educated about other countries.  
 8: And, why anybody who opposes the stealing of the Palestinian lands or criticizes suppression of Palestinians is easily being accused of ant-Semite?
 A: It’s become a badge of honor to be called anti-Semitic. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Stephen Hawking, Roger Waters have all been called anti-Semites. I’m proud to be in their company.

Hate vs. Peace and Harmony

hate & peace.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned today that Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Dannon told AIPAC that Bernie Sanders is an ‘ignorant fool, a liar or both. “We don’t want Sanders at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel…Whoever calls the prime minister of Israel a  ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool, or both,”  Ambassador Dannon announced.

The evidence of Israel’s racism and Netanyahu’s government’s racialist policies is, unfortunately, conclusive. One can look at Netanyahu’s government’s approach to Black migrants. Or examine the racist Israeli national bill. This leads one to wonder what motivated Ambassador Dannon to act so ‘undiplomatically,’ by attacking the Democratic Party frontrunner for expressing a reasoned criticism of Israel and its PM?

But even before we can get to that question, we have to consider what the same Israeli media outlets have informed us. In a leaked recording, Netanyahu senior adviser Natan Eshel, revealed that “hate is what unites” the Israeli right-wing and it “works well on non-Ashkenazi voters.”

Eshel, a former Netanyahu chief of staff who resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct, continues to work with the Israeli PM, and last year led the two coalition negotiations. 

In the recording, Eshel explains that Likud minister (and former IDF Spokeswoman) Miri Regev  is “excellent” at “stirring up” Likud supporters. Eshel refers to Regev as “an animal,” but notes her tactics work very well in  “drumming up the crowd.”

It is reasonable to think  that Ambassador Dannon’s description of Sen. Sanders served a similar purpose: to drum up the AIPAC crowd. And, of course, the British Jewish media together with Jewish pressure groups and the Israeli Lobby  have, since 2017,  also used this technique to ignite  their crowd’s hatred of the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Some people, so it seems, are united by hate.

Netanyahu’s senior adviser’s leaked recording shines a light on the ever- growing Jewish fear of antisemitism. Those who are so easily ‘united by hate’ tend to believe that others are also similarly hateful. The Jewish fear of antisemitism can be seen as projection. Those who are ‘united by hate,’ may well attribute their own hatefulness to their neighbours whether they are Palestinians, Labour voters, or even the Democratic frontrunner.

What we see is a lethal snowball of loathing and fear: the more hateful one happens to be, the more one is tormented by imagining that the Other is afflicted by the same hatefulness.

Jesus Christ diagnosed this very dangerous trait amongst his brethren. His solution was shocking, if simple. Instead of stockpiling weapons, he preached that his followers turn the other cheek: take a step forward, love your neighbour, break away from the vicious circle, seek peace and harmony.

The fate of Jesus is known to us all. The fate of those who try to preach peace to Israelis and Zionists isn’t exactly a secret either.

In the Orwellian World the IRGC Is Called a ‘Terrorist’ Organization, But the U.S. Military and the IDF Are Not

By Robert Fantina

Source

The Canadian B’nai Brith organization has sued the Canadian government to force it to comply with a 2018 motion by the House of Commons to list the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.

According to its website, B’nai Brith “…is committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and combating anti-Semitism and bigotry.” Very pleasant words indeed, but upon closer look, they lose all meaning.

The ‘State’ of Israel last year declared itself the nation-state of the Jewish people and only the Jewish people. That means that approximately 25% of people living in Israel, many of the ‘Semites’ (Arabs are Semites), are now second-class citizens. If B’nai Brith is committed to combating anti-Semitism and bigotry, fighting this racist and wholly unjust law looks like an excellent place to start.

In announcing their lawsuit against the government of Canada, the organization made some very bizarre claims:

* “The IRGC poses a very serious security threat to Canadians. Listing it as a terrorist entity in this country is necessary to deter this threat and reduce its ability to do harm”.

What, one might reasonably ask, is that ‘very serious security threat’? Iran has not invaded another nation since 1798, and it is very unlikely that, if it should decide to start invading nations, Canada will not be its first choice. The people at B’nai Brith can rest assured that the IRGC poses no threat to them whatsoever.

* “The IRGC was responsible for last month’s downingof a civilian airplane in Tehran, killing 57 Canadians and another 81 people who were travelling to Canada.” Yes, that is a sad and tragic fact, but a little context helps to explain this situation. The United States had just assassinated Commander Qassem Soleimani, in violation of both U.S. and international law, and the civilian airplane that was so tragically shot down was mistaken for enemy aircraft when Iran was on high alert. This was not some random decision by government officials to arbitrarily destroy a passenger plane, but a tragic error.

* The IRGC “…is tasked with protecting Iran’s brutal Islamist dictatorship.” The people at B’nai Brith seem to forget that the Iranian people overthrew a brutal dictator and installed a government of their own choosing. It is far from a ‘brutal’ Islamist dictatorship.

If the organization wants to oppose a brutal regime, it could start closer to home. The Israeli government is one of the most brutal and criminal on the planet, oppressing the Palestinians in the most unspeakably cruel ways, and supporting terrorists in Syria and neighboring countries.

  • The IRGC supports “…its international terrorist proxies.” No, B’nai Brith, that is what Israel and the United States do. The IRGC supports its allies, such as Syria, where foreign-financed and foreign-trained terrorists are attempting to overthrow the government. As a country allied with Syria, Iran is obligated to come to its aid, and has done so.
  • “Its principle objective is to fuel and fund terrorism.” No, its principle objective is to protect the nation from outside aggression. It is the United States military whose ‘principle objective is to fuel and fund terrorism’. That was even recognized, at least to a limited extent, by Democratic presidential-candidate hopeful, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who recently pointed out just a few of the peaceful nations whose governments the U.S. didn’t like and overthrew, introducing poverty, oppression and chaos to them.
  • “The IRGC has been responsible for sponsoring, orchestrating and carrying out many deadly terror attacks on foreign soil”. Is there any proof of this? Or are the people at B’nai Brith so blinded by hatred of a nation that supports the human rights struggles of the Palestinian people that they will make any outlandish statement that comes to mind? Again, it is the United States that ‘has been responsible for sponsoring, orchestrating and carrying out many deadly terror attacks on foreign soil’, not Iran.

One might ask why it is that B’nai Brith wants to influence Canada to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization. There are a few possible reasons:

  1. The organization will do anything to distract the public from the international crimes and crimes against humanity committed on a daily basis by Israel;
  2. It seeks to weaken Iran, the only major power in the Middle East that threatens Israeli hegemony;
  3. It wants to play up to the United States, which has always given Israel just about everything it wants, despite its dismal human-rights record, and which, with the election of Donald Trump, has become an even more ‘generous’ flowing tap of money, privilege and protection from accountability on the world stage.

Canada has not acted since the House of Commons voted to name the IRGC a terrorist organization. Perhaps that is because, for all his faults, and heaven knows they are numerous, Canadian Premier Justin Trudeau does not see Iran in quite the same light as criminal Zionist organizations do. Perhaps he, and others in the Canadian government, recognize that in their role on the world stage, and know that diplomacy is better than threats, and talking is better than bringing the world closer to war. These vitally important facts seem to have escaped the people at B’nai Brith.

What Canada will do with this motion by the House of Commons remains to be seen. That the government has not moved quickly to act is a good sign, and we must all hope that this unjust motion never becomes law.

The IRGC is a major component of Iranian strength in Iran and is vital to protecting Iranians from the criminal actions of Israel and the United States. It is an Orwellian world indeed when the IRGC is called a ‘terrorist’ organization, but the U.S. military and the IDF are not.

The Corona Future

 BY GILAD ATZMON

Stay at home

Watch pro-semitic films

Buy on-line

Don’t ask too many questions especially when the answers are too obvious…

Donate

The Government of Israel Has A Very Serious Antisemitism Problem

By Miko Peled

Source

Jerusalem, Palestine — As Zionist organizations around the world weaponize antisemitism and use it as a tool to bring down politicians and other public figures with whom they disagree, the state of Israel is engaged in what is perhaps the worst example of antisemitism in the world today.

A rebellion against the Almighty

According to Halakhah, strict Jewish law, the Jewish people have been in exile as a result of a heavenly decree for sinning against the Almighty. According to the Talmud, the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish law – exiled Jews took three vows they must observe while in exile:

  1. Not to rebel against the nations
  2. To avoid a mass return to the Holy Land
  3. To avoid any actions that will hasten the end of the exile

Orthodox Jews, therefore, consider Zionism to be a rebellion against the Almighty and a severe violation of Jewish law. As early as the year 1900, some of the best-known Rabbis from Jewish communities around the world published a book they called “Or Layesharim,” or “Light Unto the Righteous.” Published in Warsaw, it is a collection of letters condemning Zionism. From then on, even and to this very day, their opposition and total condemnation of Zionism continues.

During the Nazi occupation of Europe and as a result of the Holocaust, Ultra-Orthodox communities in Europe were wiped out. Those who survived moved to the U.S., the UK and other places, including the Holy Land where they picked up their struggle against Zionism, rejecting the state of Israel. The most vocal and well known among these was Rabbi Joel Yoel Teitelbaum better known as the Satmar Rebbe. Teitelbaum managed to build and lead an enormous anti-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Dr. Yaakov De Haan

The Ultra-Orthodox community uses education and protests in its struggle against Zionism and has never once taken up arms or even threatened to do so. Israel, on the other hand, utilizes all of the power it possesses, including enormous amounts of violence, against this community.

On the night of July 1, 1924, a Zionist terror gang commanded by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, (who later became the president of the state of Israel), shot and killed Dr. Yaakov De Haan in cold blood. Dr. De Haan was a Dutch-Jewish journalist and lawyer who moved to Palestine and settled in Jerusalem in order to live the life of an observant Ultra-Orthodox Jew. He was deeply involved in the struggle against Zionism and gained the respect of both the Jewish and Arab communities in the Holy Land.

Dr. De Haan

Yaakov De Haan was working in close contact with elements of the British government to get the Balfour Declaration rescinded. Furthermore, he succeeded in bringing the communities of Jews and Arabs who were native to Jerusalem together in an effort to push back against Zionism. The Zionists, whose efforts to take over Palestine redoubled after the British occupation in 1917, worked to undermine the Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis and established their own official Rabbinate and religious Jewish institutions that were loyal to their cause but were never recognized by the original Ultra-Orthodox community.

Recognizing that Dr. De Haan was a serious threat to the Zionist takeover in Palestine, and particularly worried about the collaboration between Jewish and Arab leaders against them, the Zionist militia assassinated De Haan. The first victim of political assassination executed by the Zionists in Palestine was Jewish.

Forced Draft

Opposed to the Jewish state and prevented by their faith from bearing arms, the Ultra-Orthodox community wanted no part in the Israeli Army. When the state of Israel was established, an agreement was reached between the government and the leaders of this community that their young men and women would receive a deferment which meant that in practice, unless they wished to do so, they were exempt from serving in the army. Israel’s military, for all intents and purposes, could not be less religiously observant and any observant Jew who enters is almost guaranteed to come out secular.

In recent years, there have been attempts to change the draft law in Israel in an effort to force the Ultra-Orthodox community to serve. The army calls on Israeli boys and girls to come to an initial interview and selection process at the age of 16. Then, there is a second interview at around 17, and at 18, the boys and girls are drafted. Due to changes in the draft law, the initial agreement no longer stands. Now, every Ultra-Orthodox boy and girl over the age of 16 is considered a deserter because they refuse to enlist.

Israeli ultra-Orthodox

Israel does not recognize conscientious objectors, so in instances where the boy or girl does go to the first interview to try to get an exemption, the process is painful and punitive and often ends in arrest. This, in return, brings the community together in mass protests which leads to even more arrests. The Israeli police treat this community with a cruelty that is hard to understand. The entire process, including the arrests, the interrogations, and the treatment they endure while they are processed by the system, is a clear violation of their human and religious rights and is tantamount to torture.

Police Violence

While little or no information regarding Israeli police violence is reported in the media, inside or outside of Israel, the community has documented evidence and has even taken legal action against the police. As the following video clips show, one can hardly imagine that any other country would get away with treating Jews in this manner:

When Zionist organizations accuse people who reject Zionism and Israel of antisemitism, they should be made to view these images of real antisemitism.

Dershowitz on the Promotion of Jewish Values (precious)

 BY GILAD ATZMON

In his desperate attempt to defame Bernie Sanders, the Harvard professor has identified the enemy within: “the worst people in terms of not promoting Jewish values.” Dershowitz was referring to Norman Finkelstein, Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky and Gilad Atzmon. I guess that most people would regard the company above as guardians of justice and humanism. Not exactly a quality that can be attributed to Dershowitz and his arch pedo-pal Jeffrey Epstein.

Sooner or later, the American people will have to figure out how did lame characters such as Dershowitz have managed to invade their Ivy League institutions…

Donate

Poles Got Upset by Putin’s Words, Accusing Russia of Anti-Semitism

February 09, 2020

Source

by Ruslan Ostashko

Translated by Sasha and captioned by Leo.

Not only the Russian president’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel caused bad pain in the hinds of the Euro-Ukros and our native liberal wish washers, it also offended the Poles when Putin reminded the world of their nationalists’ inhuman policies.
The Russian leader’s visit to Israel has now ended a few days ago but the behinds in the post-Soviet area are still burning, not only those of the Moscow ‘creatilibs’ and the Kiev Euro-Ukros. The thing here is that, in effect, in his speech before the Jews, Putin reminded them that they never got any compensation for the European, Polish and Baltic nationalist active participation in the Holocaust.

Vladimir Putin: “The crimes committed by the Nazis, their well-thought-through, pre-planned, Final Solution, for the Jews that is, my respectable colleagues, one of the darkest and shameful pages in the newest world history. But let us not forget that this crime had accomplices. They often exceeded their masters in cruelty. Not only the Nazis serviced the death factories, concentration camps. But also their accomplices in many European countries did it as well. More Jews were murdered in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, where these bandits operated, than anywhere else. Thus around 1.4 million Jews perished in the Ukraine. 220,000 Jews were murdered in Lithuania. This – I wish to draw your attention to, dear friends – this is 95% of the pre-war Jewish population of that country. 77,000 [killed] in Latvia, and so on. Only a few hundred of Latvian Jews survived the Holocaust.”
It is no secret to anyone in Israel who is the subject here. And, what is most important, while Germany has paid money in full for Hitler’s crimes, neither Poland, nor Latvia, nor the Ukraine paid a penny for the deeds of those who they regard as their ideological forefathers. In Poland these were the nationalists from Armia Krajowa, who were subordinate to the [Polish] exile government in London. Not only these Polish-brewed Nazis actively counteracted the red partisans from Armia Ludowa, they also killed Jews.
Source – Reedus. “In 2018, a book by a journalist Wojciech Lada ‘Criminals from Armia Krajowa’ was released in Poland, which informs of multiple instances of killings of Jews by units belonging to this organisation.” According to the author, members of Armia Krajowa usually explained their crimes with the fact that the Jews sympathised with the Soviets and helped the communists – and hated the Poles. Often they spoke of liquidation of Communist Jewish gangs.”

Behold a couple of examples of the Polish Nazis’ crimes (*Graphic images used in the video from 3:38-4:07*): “Members of the ‘White Colours’ unit of Armia Krajowa Legions infantry regiment marked history with infamous deeds. Upon the order from the unit commander Lieutenant Kazimierz Olchowik, alias ‘Zawisza’, on 17 August, 1944, eight militiamen killed 50 Jews, including women and children, which had escaped from the labour camp in the town of Skarżysko-Kamienna. Their belongings were given to Zawisza and the bodies remained unburied. This group of Jews was hiding in the forests not far from the village of Siekerna, Świętokrzyskie Voivodship. They were seeking help and wished to join the partisans from the Armia Krajowa. A year earlier, partisans from the special unit of Sector II of Armia Krajowa in Cmielów Precinct shot 7 Jews, who were hidden by a Polish woman Maria Szuba. The killing was done in her presence. Before the killing, the Poles demanded money from those Jews.”
There. While the normal Poles hid Jews, the Polish Nazis killed those they discovered, including women and children. When asked what was the difference between Armia Krajowa and Zondercommando SS, Polish authorities and journalists begin drooling uncontrollably. And then they invent this move. They start writing that Poland has no anti-semitism but it exists within the damned Muscovites.

Source – Telegram channel “Horde”: “It’s rather complicated over there. And now there is Putin on top of that. This is why the Polish magazine ‘Polityka’ decided to serve Putin a cruel retaliatory blow and describe the Russian anti-semitism. Because anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, in America, while, according to the Jewish organisation themselves, it is all quiet in Russia.”
Indeed, on one hand, admits the periodical, “according to all the research Russia is not an antisemitic country.” However “Polityka” bravely assumes: “What if in Russia they are ‘the wrong’ Jews?” The ‘other’ ones have left while the inattentive and indifferent ones stayed.

Source – Telegram-channel “Horde”: “For instance, in 2018 an unknown vandal drew a swastika on the monument to Armenian-Russian friendship in Novokuznetsk. The ‘normal ones’ would have shouted foul because it is obvious anti-semitism. But the Russian Jews never even noticed. The Russian Jews also lack sensitivity to everyday Judeophobia. Where the informed Europeans would run circles around the issue, draw the society’s attention, the Russian Jews don’t care, explaining that ‘it’s a trifle and nothing to make noise about’ (27%) and ‘I’ve solved it myself’ (23%).”

Get it, right? Russia is so insidious that it has bred a special sub-species of Mordor Jews, whom nothing can move. And it did it apparently solely in order to get back at the Poles, whose folklore still has an amulet called “A Jew with a Coin.” This is what written about it in the ‘respectable’ Wikipedia, which we cannot suspect of Russophilia.

Source – Polish article, “A Jew with a Coin” in Wikipedia: “According to the Polish anthropologist and ethnographer Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, the image of an elderly Jew in Polish cultural consciousness has features of an alien community which is not an integral part of Polish national self-identification. The combination of a greedy Jew and coins is associated for Poles with the ancient negative stereotype of the Jewish people who allegedly have a ‘magic ability’ to manipulate and govern the money that does not belong to them, gaining a considerable profit from it.”

“According to the Polish anthropologist Bożena Umińska-Keff, the image of an old Jew is a reflectorial expression of negative emotions which evokes the traditional Polish anti-semitism and exits within the system of viewing a Jew as blood-sucking, oppressive magician.”

It is the Poles who view the Jews negatively which is admitted by the Polish anthropologists themselves, but anti-semitism is supposed to be in Russia, who, on top of that, have bred for themselves the aforementioned sturdy and able to refrain from making a scandal sub-species of Jews. Probably from the descendants of those whom the Armia Krajowa failed to kill, those who managed to find the normal Soviet partisans and escape the Hitlerites. How can one listening to all of that have a normal attitude towards the Polish government and the state governed by them? It is a rhetorical question. Russia is a multinational country. And although we do have inter-ethnic frictions, no one in our society, except a miserable handful of marginal elements, makes Nazis into heroes.

The Poles, as well as the Balts and Ukrainians have different norms. They “zig” with one hand, praising those who partook in the Holocaust and other Hitler’s crimes, and with the other they argue that the local Nazi varieties fought against the Germans for independence, having suffered cruelly from the damned Soviet regime. In my mind, we have nothing to talk about with these melted brains. Russia should sever diplomatic relations with all the countries that make heroes of the Nazis and forget about their existence. They will soon be dealt with by the keen-on-profit Israel supported by the USA. And then they will find out what it means to be down and out.

Interview poll of Russian people on the street, by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Do you believe that the Poles view the events of WWII different than the Russians?

Middle-aged woman – “I think yes. If it is presented over there in this way, it means that the new generation thinks so. I believe that the Poles who are now 60-70 do not think that way. At least those who grew up in the “Social Camp” (Mix of the words ‘socialism’ and ‘concentration camp.’)”

Young man – “Well, every nationality has its own view, I guess. The Russians… I won’t distinguish them according to their ethnicity, because back then, there was no such difference. There were only Russians. As for Poles, I don’t know, maybe they have their own view – most likely.”

Young woman – “I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. It seems everyone views it differently because of the differences in mentality, depending on how people were brought up, with what values, and what values they have now.”

Middle-aged man – “Naturally it is obvious from their declarations in the past years, particularly lately. The Poles… their leadership… their authorities they are trying to overturn history. It’s their attitude to our country, our Russia.”

Middle-aged man – “I don’t know about the Poles as a nation, we are talking about the politicians. Politicians view it differently, the way that is profitable for them at the moment. And in the most of European countries… Well, maybe not in the most of European countries, but in Poland and Ukraine they definitely view it differently. This is more profitable for them.

Old man – “I think every nation has its own views on its own history and on the history of the nations around. That’s firstly. Secondly, I think every Pole… something in his soul remains after ‘Poland from Sea to Sea’, from the Polish Commonwealth. Naturally they’d like to return to the past condition. And so certain moves are being used for that end.”

Young man – “I think it is so. In particular, in my perspective, the well-known Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact allows the Poles to think rather bad. It is unconditional that the results of the war… it was a big victory. Yes, it is unquestionable achievement of our fathers and grandfathers. But the problem is that, as a result, we have this: we moved the conflict to the Polish territory. This is what it turned to be.”

Afterword by Ruslan Ostashko to his PolitRussia YouTube channel subscribers:

Dear friends, we are very grateful to you for your support for our channel. Thanks to your financial aid we are able to have a really independent editorial policy and make videos that you like. Although this does not change the fact that you may disagree with our authors and keep robust discussion in the comments section. Personally I see it as absolutely normal. We are living people who express their personal views on the subject at hand. And it is very cool that our audience has their own views and we are having active arguments and discussions in the comments section.

The future of our country is not in the view of one big official but it is rather in the ability to listen and hear the many. I regard everyone who donates funds for our work as our share holder. This money is your investment. The investment in the future of our country, in the coverage of very different events. It is an investment into education of our youth, in the substantiated thrashing of the liberals on YouTube, the platform they always regarded as their realm. It is an important and needed work which we do together with you. We think it is appropriate not only to share with you our successes and plans, but also the difficulties we face. This allows us to search for solutions together, overcome the complications in our editorial work and move forward for the good of our Motherland.

Before the New Year I shared a pleasant news with you about opening of our channel in Spanish language which was supposed to work for the audiences in Latin America. This is an important and promising region where our country can strengthen its influence and collect quite real bonuses for us all. Now, with a deep regret I must state that we are halting this channel’s work. It is due to financial complications. One sponsor helped us to open and develop this channel. He deeply believes in the importance of that region and that is why he was ready to invest his own money in development of this channel. Now, however he encountered financial difficulties of his own and ceased financing of the channel. Well, at least there is a silver lining. This story nudged me to the thought that we can develop particular topics and sections if this particular topic finds a particular sponsor.

Your current support is directed at maintaining our editorial work within the range that we determine ourselves among our team. It is important for us to maintain a balance of topics which ensure a large volume of views and, accordingly, a large income from the ads: Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states etc., and the topics which are really important for the life in our country. Unfortunately the internal topics do not get as many views as we would like them. This is why you often write in the comments that it wouldn’t be too bad to pay more attention to those topic rather than to, let’s say, Ukraine. Now I wish to ask you. Perhaps among our subscribers we could find medium and large investors from 100k rubles ($1,560.83) a month, who are ready to invest their money in particular topics and sections or even open a separate channel?

Regional problems, corruption in particular organisations, inequality of rights of men and women during divorce – the topics are plentiful. Such investments would allow us to direct particular resources to these topics. Let’s think about it together. If there are such investors among our subscribers, please write to me privately in the social networks or to ruslan@politrussia.com. And I wish to tell to the rest of our viewers that even a transfer of 50 or 100 rubles can be a great help for our office to remain afloat. There are many of us. Let us not forget about that. The bank details can be found at www.politrussia.com and in the description to this video. Thank you. You are the best.

Addressing the Lies Spread about Gilad

 BY GILAD ATZMON

For more than a decade and a half I have been subjected to a relentless and sometimes violent smear campaign. I have been accused of all sorts of ‘hate crimes’ including the totally ludicrous claim that I advocate the ‘burning of synagogues,[ ‘incitements of violence,’ and have routinely been labelled, among other slurs, a ‘notorious anti semite’ and a ‘Holocaust denier.’ Of course, if any of these accusations had merit, I would have spent time behind bars. The truth, as should be embarrassing for the name callers, is that I have never been charged with  hate speech or any other crime. No law enforcement authority anywhere has ever even questioned me about anything I wrote or said. I perform and teach all over the world, including in Germany and Austria, where ‘holocaust denial’ is vigorously prosecuted.

My detractors boast that they intend to ruin my reputation, smear and impoverish me and any others they deem improperly critical of Israel. I should have written this piece long ago but I found it demeaning to deny baseless accusations founded on lies and misquotes. For the record, I am not an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, nor a conspiracy theorist. 

My detractors are now terrorizing the extended music community in an attempt to accomplish their insane mission.  I defy the idea that we live in a ‘post truth era.’ Athens, for me, is a core of inspiration and truth seeking and is my life time adventure. Here, in response to the fabrications attributed to me by various Jewish institutions such as the JC and the CAA,   are the actual statements I made. 

Gilad on Burning Synagogues: Rationality vs. Justification

Zionist pressure groups have claimed that I advocated burning  synagogues. The origin of this preposterous assertion is a misquote attributed to me in a Guardian article in 2005. According to the Guardian “Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestine advocate, gave a talk to students this month, arguing: ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.’”  A week later the Guardian agreed to publish my letter in which I explain and refute this claim. “Your quote …[of me] is inaccurate and taken out of context. By no means did I justify any form of violence against Jews, Jewish interests or any innocent people. In the School of Oriental and African Studies we were debating the question of rationality of anti-semitism. I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the ‘state of the Jewish people’, and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.”

At the time, pro Zionist online discussion groups complained that the police failed to charge me with incitement of hatred. The reason for that  is obvious, there was no evidence, I never advocated burning synagogues. I have always opposed any form of violence against Jews or anyone else!  The British authorities understood that I was discussing the ‘discourse of rationality’ (Reasoning) and not the ‘context of rationalisation’ (Justification).  Horrendous war crimes are grossly unethical but may also be rational. The decision to nuke Hiroshima, for instance, was a rational decision although insanely immoral. The same applies to Israel shelling Gaza with white phosphorus. A calculated military decision was made to engage in these vile war crimes.  Examining the rationale for such crimes may be our best hope to prevent them. Rationality and morality are categorically distinct concepts as my actual words made clear.   

Is Gilad a ‘Holocaust Denier?’

I have been accused of being a ‘Holocaust denier’ or a Holocaust revisionist.  This is simply false. I have never denied the Holocaust nor have I written a single revisionist text as I am not an historian of any sort.  I guess no need to  mention once again that my mother’s family suffered enormously in that terrible period. 

I am a philosopher. As such, I argue that this chapter in our past should be treated not as a religion or dogma, but must, like all other past events, be subject to scrutiny and open discussion. If history is the art of narrating the past as we move along, then revising our understanding of  the past is the true meaning of the historical endeavour. In my work I argue that engaging in a discourse of history that is open to revision is at the core of the ethical insight.

It is also crucial to mention that the notion of ‘holocaust religion’ was actually coined by the legendary Israeli philosopher prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz back in the 1970s. Leibowitz was followed by Adi Ophir, another prominent Israeli philosopher who offered his own criticism of the Holocaust religion in his paper On Sanctifying the Holocaust: An Anti-Theological Treatise.

Did Gilad really say that Hitler was right after all?

My  words as they appear in my 2011 book, “The Wandering Who?”  shows that I said the opposite: even the thought by some that Hitler might have been right is presented as an unacceptable scenario. 

“We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all.’ The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran.” (The Wandering Who? pg 179)

As you can read, my actual words are diametrically opposed to the manufactured misquotes attributed to me by various Zionist pressure groups. I used the extreme example of a nuclear war to argue that Israel should finally seek peace with its neighbours to deny anyone the thought that Hitler was right after all. 

Did Gilad ask Jews to apologise for the Holocaust?

In 2014, in the light of huge anti Jewish protests in Paris, I wrote a piece titled Holocaust Day – The Time Is Ripe For A Jewish Apology.  In the article I briefly elaborated on historical hatred of Jews and the Zionist promise to prevent the Jewish fate by ‘fixing’ the Jews and making them ‘people like all other people.’ I closed the article with the following paragraph.  “Many Jews around the world are commemorating the Holocaust this week. But if I am correct, maybe the time is ripe for Jewish and Zionist organisations to draw the real and most important lesson from the Holocaust. Instead of constantly blaming the Goyim for inflicting pain on Jews, it is time for Jews to look in the mirror and try to identify what it is in Jews and their culture that evokes so much fury. It may even be possible that some Jews would take this opportunity to apologise to the Gentiles around them for evoking all this anger.”

Nowhere in the article did I suggest Jews apologise for the Holocaust. I accept that my words may be infuriating to those who are contemptuous of conciliatory efforts. I reckon that it would not be such a bad idea for Campaign Against Antisemitism to apologise to Labour members and Jeremy Corbyn whom they smeared mercilessly. The British Chief Rabbi could join them, as might the editors of the three British Jewish papers who literally referred to Corbyn as an ‘existential threat’ and practically equated him with Hitler. Such a peace-seeking approach on the part of some Jewish institutions will help to diffuse the anger these bodies engendered  during the GE 2019 amongst many segments of the British Left.  

Is Gilad a “promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?”

According to the ADL, I’m an “outspoken promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a fierce critic of the State of Israel.” I am indeed a fierce critic of Israel and  I am outspoken. But not only do I not promote ‘antisemitic conspiracy theories,’ as I repeatedly state throughout my entire body of work, ‘there are no Jewish conspiracies. Everything is done in the open’ and in front of our eyes. 

What I do observe is that  we cannot speak about any of that: Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. The Israel Lobby dominates American foreign policy, it pushes for a conflict with Iran. Similarly, the Congress’ performance of one standing ovation after the other for Netanyahu wasn’t a secret ritual. In Britain, Jewish institutions such as the Jewish papers, the Chief Rabbi and a Jewish charity declared an open war on the opposition party and its leader. None of that was ‘conspiratorial’ or secretive. We are dealing with mainstream news, yet we dare not talk about it let alone criticise it.

 Evoking animosity in others

In 2013 I was interviewed by Swiss writer Alimuddin Usmanani who asked me to define what it means to be a Jew. My answer was short and conclusive: “To be a Jew is to evoke animosity in others.” My answer was provocative and at least as challenging as the official Tikun Olam’s answer to the same question, i.e., ‘to be a Jew is to fix the world.’ However, while there are no statistics that show that Jews are actually engaged in fixing the world, my critics within the CAA, the ADL, The Jewish Chronicle and other Zionists institutions publish polls on an almost  daily basis that suggest that Jews are hated globally and locally.

The ethos that drove early Labour Zionism both ideologically and politically was the acceptance that, for one reason or another, Jews can’t assimilate  and would be safer somewhere else where they would become, through political training, into ‘people like all other people.’ I do not say that Jews should be hated. Rather like those early Zionists, I contend that Jewish institutions must self-reflect. Instead of accusing Goyim, Brits, Labour members, Americans, etc. they should engage in a true introspective process. Crying about antisemitism and/or terrorising jazz clubs and music venues won’t solve the Jewish problem, it will make it worse and the situation is clearly deteriorating as the ADL/CAA/CST statistics on anti semitism reveal.   

Is David Duke a humanist?

I oppose all forms of biologically oriented politics. I oppose all forms of politics that are defined by race, gender or sexual orientation. I contend that politics ought to unite us as equals rather than divide us on the basis of biology. David Duke and I hold distinctly opposite positions on this and other fundamental issues.

In March 2014 I gave an interview to larmurerie.fr/ I can’t trace the original French article but a  Google translation of the French original exists on my site. I was asked by the French Journalist the following question: Many French people share your opinion. For example, there is a French thinker, Hervé Ryssen, who uses the same metaphor as you when you talk about the mirror, saying that when a Jew accuses you of being an anti-semite, you just have to read the mirror image of the argument to reveal his racism towards goyim.”

My answer was as follows. “I actually use the word projection, but the mirror image is no doubt similar. And projection, by the way, is something that Freudtaught us about. You know, we have to admit that some of the most interesting humanists in the history of the West are Jews: Christ, Spinoza, Marx were Jews. Why is that?…Now there is something very interesting and it’s again the first time I’m saying it. The left is devastated by David Duke for instance. He was in the KKK when he was young. But here is something quite amazing: I read him and I was shocked to find out that this guy knows more about Jewish identity than I do! How could a supposedly ‘racist’ Gentile who probably never entered a synagogue knows more than I do about Judaism? The reason is in fact very simple: he is a proud white man. He’s interested in nationalism, in the culture of his own people, so he understands things that I am not even allowed to think about. Believe it or not, even as a Jew, I wasn’t allowed to think of myself as a racist. I was a racist, maybe I am still one, but I was not allowed to acknowledge it. Once he acknowledges that he’s talking about white people’s rights, in a way he thinks like Avigdor Lieberman! But in fact, he is way better than Lieberman. David Duke is a humanist because he says, «I want to celebrate my right and you should celebrate your rights»  whether you are Muslim or black or whatever. He believes that all people should celebrate their rights, this is his current philosophy. Avidgor Liberman is not a humanist, because he wants to celebrate his rights at the expense of other people.”

In my book. Humanism is primarily a universal adventure. Duke, today, is no doubt a separatist. He prefers to see people  living in partitioned enclaves, he opposes immigration and his political thought is racially oriented, yet, if I understand it correctly, he believes that all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, skin colour or religion should enjoy such a right. At least in comparison with the right wing Zionist philosophy that adheres to the idea that one people should celebrate their self determination on the expense of another people, Duke’s current offering is more ethical, universal and humane. I understand that some Jews may be upset by the comparison, however, the way to deal with disagreement is to produce a counter argument rather than terrorising the music community.  I myself hold completely opposing views to Duke’s on the matter: I believe that people should learn to live together and seek harmony. This is why I left Israel. However, despite of my disagreement with Duke on some fundamental and crucial issues, in consistance with the Western intellectual tradition, I take pride in making an effort to understand positions before I criticize them. 

Does Gilad Hate Jews?

As I have stated time and time again, I have never criticized Jews or anyone else as a people, a race, an ethnicity or a biology. I challenge my detractors to produce a single reference in my work that contradicts this. No one has ever produced the goods. In my work there is no hatred whatsoever, against Jews or anyone else. Many years ago, I accepted that some Jews regard me as a ‘self hater’ yet, I fail to see how me hating myself is so unsettling for other Jews.   

In 2014 I produced a statement that some mistakenly saw as an admission of ‘Jew hatred’ and racism. At the time, I engaged in a brief twitter exchange with @OnePoundOne, an Israeli nationalist who frequently urged the murder of Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs.

On one occasion @OnePoundOne insisted  that ‘as a Jew’ I should support his violent anti Arab/Muslim rampage. I replied:

“@OnePoundOne 1. I am not a Jew anymore 2. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Jew in you.”

@OnePoundOne’s twitter account was suspended shortly after our exchange for spreading hate speech and advocating violence.

suspended.jpg

Despite the suspension of @OnePoundOne’s account, some examples of his hateful communications survive on the internet in the form of screenshots.

onepound threats.jpg

I have never before publicly addressed the criticism over my answer to @OnePoundOne. Anti-Semites are people who hate Jews for being Jews. Anti-Semites do not accept that Jews can stop being Jews and morph into something else.  My response to @OnePoundOne dismantles this racist doctrine:

1.  I suggest that one can choose to stop being a Jew. In this view, Jewishness is a cultural or religious construct and is not either racially or biologically determined.

2. To the extent I myself retain that culture, I admit that I detest that cultural aspect in myself.

3. Further, I rejected any cultural impetus that may exist in @OnePoundOne’s hateful statements that called for violence against Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims ‘as a Jew’.

But there is a fascinating intellectual exercise to apply here that helps explain my reaction to @OnePoundOne’s vile incitement of violence. Replacing the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Protestant’  in my answer to @OnePoundOne would read as follows: “1. I am not a Protestant anymore 2. I indeed despise the Protestant in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Protestant in you.” While  some might find this offensive, it is not racist as Protestantism is a belief system rather than a racial identification. If we proceed with this exercise and replace the word Jew with a biological category such as skin-colour or race, the statement collapses instantly as ‘I am not  Black anymore’ is a meaningless statement for someone who is Black. Similarly, ‘I am not Caucasian anymore’ is just as silly and hollow. In other words, my answer to @OnePoundOne could never be grasped as a ‘racist’ offensive statement as it defies the idea that Jews are actually a race, as I myself managed to stop being one.

I am afraid to inform my detractors once again, that at least intellectually, I operate as a philosopher. If they want to fight my ideas, they will first have to invest some energy in understanding what I am saying. 

Look at these clueless British students recycling misquotes without verifying their authenticity or their meanings:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYecmT2GhHQ

Final words on the matter

I accept that my deconstruction of Jewish Identity politics upsets some Jews: no one likes to be scrutinized or criticized. But my work is limited to questioning politics and culture. I  have never criticized Jews or anyone else in racial, biological, physiological or ethnic terms. I dig into ideology, politics and culture assuming that these three must be subject to criticism. The fact that I am smeared and defamed for doing so, only suggests to me and others that in the eyes of some self identified Jews, their politics, ideology and culture are beyond criticism. In fact, this is exactly the supremacist view I deconstruct in my work.

I would expect that by now, considering their relentless efforts to destroy me, my detractors would have managed to spot a single incriminating line in my work so they don’t have to keep fabricating quotes and taking words out of context while terrorizing jazz clubs in between. So far they have failed to do so. This raises the assumption that their insane campaign against me, one that reflects very badly on my detractors, suggests that I have something very important to say.

I honestly believe that if my detractors would engage with my writing instead of attempting to burn my books, anti-Semitism wouldn’t be an issue in Britain or anywhere else. Jews would enjoy their lives and live in harmony with their neighbors.  I guess that in the minds of some Zionists crucifying me is the way forward. Some people must be foolish not to see that they turn me into an intellectual martyr, a Jazzus figure.   


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services and security expenses. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Hope for an End to Intimidation, Harassment and Bullying

 

BY GILAD ATZMON

On Thursday night, the Jewish charity, Campaign Against Antisemitsm (CAA) declared that it would  “be selecting a number of future dates on which to picket the 606 [jazz] club over its decision”  to present a jazz performance  by yours truly. With this threat, CAA crossed the  line. This time it wasn’t just going after me or my band, this time its threat encompassed an entire community of musicians and music lovers for whom the 606 club is a preeminent venue, and none of whom have anything to do with me or my ideas.

CAA.jpg

Such threats are anathema to the values of British and western culture: the way to counter ideas with which they don’t agree is to present their own position. The tactic of gross intimidation, of menacing an entire community over the legal speech of one member are more characteristic  of organised crime than of a British charity.

Yesterday I reported the CAA’s actions to the police.  They took my complaint very seriously and I was interviewed for two hours. I had the strong impression that the matter was already known to the police. 

 During the time the police interviewed me, I received a message that the CAA is under investigation by the Charities Commission. 

Screen Shot 2020-02-02 at 07.52.04.png

I was advised that  every musician, music venue, promoter or audience member who is or has been subject to any intimidation or harassment by the CAA  should contact the police immediately.

 No one should be harassed, especially by a charity, and I want to believe that the threats to British politicians, artists, intellectuals, journalists, venues and ordinary people are about to come to an end. Such a development will make life safer and more comfortable for Jews and Gentiles alike.

Zionist Terror in London

 BY GILAD ATZMON

Why I have withdrawn from my commitment to play at the Great 606 Jazz Club this Saturday night.

CAA.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

They destroyed the Labour Party, now they have launched a campaign against the British arts scene. Will they successfully abuse the moniker of anti-Semitism to destroy any place, person or organization where they sense opposition?

The 606 Jazz Club and its owner, Steve Rubie, have been subjected to a constant barrage of pressure and threats for hosting my concert. In a familiar first act,  a Jewish “member of the public” asked the 606 to explain why the club gives a [music] platform to me, whom he duplicitously  calls ‘an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier.’  The UK Jewish press avidly repeated the lies about me.  Ludicrous accusations were made. The club was told that I advocate the ‘burning of synagogues.’ I was accused of suggesting that “Hitler was right after all.” The accusations are false and, of course, unsourced as they cannot be found anywhere in my work. If I were a Hitler supporter who urged burning synagogues, certainly these campaigners would have used Britain’s strict hate speech laws to have me spend some time behind bars.. 

I have played in the 606 club for many years and Steve and I have spent many hours discussing Israel and its politics. Steve has no doubts that the accusations against me are unfounded. Yesterday  he wrote a moving  statement explaining why I am invited to play at his club on a regular basis despite the constant pressure he endures. Amazingly, Steve had to point out that The 606 is  “a music venue first and foremost. We are here to promote the best in UK music and Gilad falls in that category…” This is without regard to Steve’s disagreement with most of my political views.  

Steve’s explained the basic core western value that political disagreement is no reason to stop the music. Are we to live in a land where Tories and Labour block each other’s arts events? Ridiculous. But apparently kosher in the case of supporters of Israel and its critics. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)  were not persuaded by the simple truth of Steve’s letter. Last night, the CAA launched its new strategy, to threaten and then harass the Jazz community, the club, that artists and the jazz audience whenever it so decides.  A few hours ago the CAA posted the this Tweet:

“Campaign Against Antisemitism will be selecting a number of future dates on which to picket the

@606Club over its decision to provide notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon with a platform.”Campaign Against Antisemitism@antisemitism

Campaign Against Antisemitism will be selecting a number of future dates on which to picket the @606Club over its decision to provide notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon with a platform.

To join us, volunteer at http://antisemitism.uk/act  and when asked, set your city to “London”. https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1222960923184254976 …Join the fight against antisemitismantisemitism.ukCampaign Against Antisemitism@antisemitismIconic jazz venue @606club doubles down on disgraceful decision to host #antisemitic saxophonist Gilad Atzmonhttps://antisemitism.uk/iconic-jazz-venue-606-club-doubles-down-on-disgraceful-decision-to-host-antisemitic-saxophonist-gilad-atzmon/ …20Twitter Ads info and privacySee Campaign Against Antisemitism’s other Tweets

This should horrify every Brit, Jew and Gentile, as it horrifies me.  In 2017 a similar CAA campaign ended in a vicious attack on an audience member who suffered a serious eye injury.

This morning I decided that in the light of the CAA’s threats, I am withdrawing from the gig. I do not want to see the art scene obliterated by an insane Zionist pressure group. I certainly don’t want British artists and audiences subjected to violence. I did this despite my concerns about the consequences of bowing to anti-cultural bullies and my obligation to the British artists who have played with me for decades and whose livelihoods depends on such gigs.

Of far larger concern is that a pressure group that tweets its call for volunteers to destroy our art scene enjoys such impunity in Britain. How is it that British tax benefits granted charitable status to the benefit of the CAA that openly threatens to harass the Jazz community, its audience, venues and artists?

I deeply believe that  Britain must reinstate its liberal and universal values of tolerance and diversity, and as a first step, I intend to file a complaint against  the CAA with the Charity Commission. I ask you to examine their rules and decide if you want to do the same. 


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

Jews’ Ten Pledges vs Palestinians’ Eleven Red Lines

By Stuart Littlewood

Source

Ten Pledges Labour Party e8e51

The UK Labour Party is saying goodbye to Jeremy Corbyn as leader after its disastrous general election performance and has begun choosing someone else.

Wasting no time, the Board of Deputies of British Jews last week published Ten Pledges they wanted Labour leadership hopefuls to sign up to if the Party’s relationship with the Jewish community was to be healed.

The BoD claim anti-Semitism in the party became a matter of great anxiety for the UK’s Jews during Corbyn’s four years in office and it will take at least 10 years to repair the damage. Their president Marie van der Zyl says: “We expect that those seeking to move the party forward will openly and unequivocally endorse these Ten Pledges in full, making it clear that if elected as leader, or deputy leader, they will commit themselves to ensuring the adoption of all these points.

“Tackling antisemitism must be a central priority of Labour’s next leader,” she insists. “We will certainly be holding to account whoever ultimately wins the contest.”

But is there really an anti-Semitism crisis other than the one caused by the Jewish State itself and mischievously drummed up within Labour? As former Israeli Director of Military Intelligence, Yehoshafat Harkabi wrote: “It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”  It has been suggested before that so-called anti-Semitism is a matter best resolved by the Jewish ‘family’ itself.

Obedience required

The BoD claim that all the leadership contenders – Sir Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips and Emily Thornberry – have signed the Ten Pledges, and three of the five deputy-leader candidates have done so. What are these crisis-busting Ten Pledges they’ve committed the Party to?

(1) Resolve outstanding cases – All outstanding and future cases should be brought to a swift conclusion under a fixed timescale.

  • Absolutely.

(2) Make the Party’s disciplinary process independent – An independent provider should be used to process all complaints, to eradicate any risk of partisanship and factionalism.

  • Of course.

(3) Ensure transparency – Key affected parties to complaints, including Jewish representative bodies, should be given the right to regular, detailed case updates, on the understanding of confidentiality.

  • Except that complainers, including the BoD, have a poor record of keeping even their wildest allegations confidential.

(4) Prevent readmittance of prominent offenders – It should be made clear that prominent offenders who have left or been expelled from the party, such as Ken Livingstone and Jackie Walker, will never be readmitted to membership.

  • It is not clear from the evidence that Livingstone or Jackie Walker committed an offence. They were hounded out and not, I think, by any independent arbitrator.

(5) Communicate with resolve – Bland, generic statements should give way to condemnation of specific harmful behaviours – and, where appropriate, condemnation of specific individuals.

  • This should apply also to false accusers and to the BoD themselves if failing to condemn the “harmful behaviours” of their brethren in the Israeli regime towards our sisters and brothers in Palestine.

(6) Provide no platform for bigotry –  Any MPs, Peers, councillors, members or CLPs [local parties] who support, campaign or provide a platform for people who have been suspended or expelled in the wake of antisemitic incidents should themselves be suspended from membership.

  • Unacceptable. Many have been suspended for no good reason. And suspension does not mean guilt.

(7) Adopt the international definition of antisemitism without qualification – The IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all its examples and clauses, and without any caveats, will be fully adopted by the party and used as the basis for considering antisemitism disciplinary cases.

  • How many times must you be told that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is a minefield? Top legal opinion (for example Hugh Tomlinson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and Geoffrey Robertson QC) warn that it is “most unsatisfactory”, has no legal force, and using it to punish could be unlawful. Furthermore it cuts across the right of free expression enshrined in UK domestic law and underpinned by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. This applies not only to information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. Labour Party members should know all this. The prohibitive IHRA definition is not something a sane organisation would incorporate into its Code of Conduct.

(8) Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community – The Jewish Labour Movement should be reengaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.

  • The BoD and JLM would do better teaching anti-racism to the Israeli regime and its supporters. Besides, MPs and councillors don’t ‘belong’ to the Labour Party or any other party; they belong to the public who elected them as their representative. No outside body should expect to influence their freedom of thought, expression or action (see the Seven Principles of Public Life).

(9) Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups – Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.

  • Labour should engage with the Jewish community though any representative organisation or individual it pleases.

(10) Show leadership and take responsibility – The leader must personally take on the responsibility of ending Labour’s antisemitism crisis.

  • There’s no agreement that anything approaching a crisis exists within the Party.

Leadership front-runner Starmer is a former human rights lawyer and ought to know better. Long-Bailey is another lawyer who should hang her head in shame. Thornberry is a former barrister specialising in human rights law – words fail.  Jess Phillips, a member of Labour Friends of Israel, wrote Truth to Power: 7 Ways to Call Time on B.S., described as “the little book we all need to help us call time on the seemingly unstoppable tide of bullshit in our lives”. The irony of it seems lost on her. Lisa Nandy is a puzzle as she’s chair of Labour Friends of Palestine.

If this bunch won’t robustly uphold freedom of expression guaranteed by law and international convention what have they let their hapless party in for? Those standing for deputy-leader also have little excuse. Angela Rayner was shadow education secretary, Ian Murray read Social Policy and Law, and Rosena Allin-Khan is a Muslim and former humanitarian aid doctor. They obediently signed the Ten Pledges. Dawn Butler and Richard Burgon declined.

When, a year ago, the French Republic presented its Human Rights Award to B’Tselem (the Israeli human rights group) its Executive Director Hagai El-Ad, thanking the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, said of Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians: “The occupation…. is organized, prolonged state violence which brings about dispossession, killings, and oppression. All branches of the state are part of it: ministers and judges, officers and planners, parliamentarians and bureaucrats.”

On another occasion B’Tselem said: “If the international community does not come to its senses and force Israel to abide by the rules that are binding to every state in the world, it will pull the rug out from under the global effort to protect human rights in the post-WWII era.”

When a respected Israeli organisation speaks truth in such stark terms it cannot be ignored.  And recent UN reports confirm that the Israelis abuse and torture child prisoners. So why would anyone – especially those competing to be Labour Party leader and one day prime minister – agree to dance to the tune of those who pimp and lobby on Israel’s behalf?

Who will punish the false accusers?

The BoD nevertheless make some valid points. The Labour Party takes a ridiculously long time to deal with allegations of anti-Semitism, many of which are false or vexatious and could be dismissed in five minutes. Let me tell you about two Scottish Labour politicians wrongly accused of anti-Semitic remarks and suspended. Let’s call them ‘A’ and ‘B’. Both are regional councillors.

Constituency party officials declared ‘A’ guilty immediately and issued a press statement to that effect without waiting for him to be heard, hugely prejudicing any investigation. This stupidity was compounded by his Council leader publicly calling on him to resign as a councillor and saying his thinking belonged to the Dark Ages: “To smear an entire community both past and present, to say he has lost ‘all empathy’ for them is utterly deplorable,” he was quoted in the press.

What was ‘A’s crime? He had tweeted: “For almost all my adult life I have had the utmost respect and empathy for the Jewish community and their historic suffering. No longer, due to what they and their Blairite plotters are doing to my party and the long suffering people of Britain…” Was nobody in the local party aware that the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies were then leading an obnoxious campaign to discredit Labour and Jeremy Corbyn?

‘B’, a respected lady councillor, was accused of anti-Semitism by a former Labour MP who was already on record as wanting to impose limits on freedom of expression. A Tory MP immediately put the boot in, telling the media it was clear to the vast majority of people that ‘B’ was no longer fit to hold office and suspension didn’t go far enough.

And what was ‘B’s crime? She had voiced suspicion on social media that Israeli spies might be plotting to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader after three Jewish newspapers ganged up to publish a joint front page warning that a Corbyn-led government would pose an “existential threat to Jewish life in this country”.

She added that if it was a Mossad assisted campaign to prevent the election of a Labour Government (which pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood) it amounted to an unwarranted interference in our democracy. For good measure she said Israel was a racist State and, since the Palestinians are also Semites, an anti-Semitic one.

‘B’ was eventually interviewed by party investigators. They surely knew that in January 2017 a senior political officer at the Israeli embassy in London, Shai Masot, had plotted with stooges among British MPs and other activists to “take down” senior government figures including Boris Johnson’s deputy at the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan. And that Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s former chief spokesman and mastermind behind Israel’s propaganda programme of disinformation, had recently arrived in London as the new ambassador.

Masot was almost certainly a Mossad tool. His hostile scheming was revealed not by Britain’s own security services and media, as one would have hoped, but by an Al Jazeera undercover team. Our Government dismissed the matter saying: “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed.” But at a Labour Party conference fringe meeting Israel insider Miko Peled warned that “they are going to pull all the stops, they are going to smear, they are going to try anything they can to stop Corbyn…. the reason anti-Semitism is used is because they [the Israelis] have no argument….”

Given such a blatant attempt by an Israeli asset to undermine British democracy, with Regev in the background and (quite probably) Mossad pulling the strings, ‘B’s suspicions were reasonable enough and she had a right to voice them.

As for Israel being a racist State, its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and other brutal policies over 70 years make it obvious. And the discriminatory Nation State laws recently adopted by Israel put the question beyond doubt. Her point about anti-Semitism was also well made. DNA research (see for example the Johns Hopkins University study published by Oxford University Press) shows that while very few Jews are Semitic most indigenous Arabs in the Holy Land, especially Palestinians, are Semites. The term ‘anti-Semitism’, long used to describe hatred of Jews, is a misnomer that hides an inconvenient truth.

And it couldn’t have been difficult to establish that the opportunistic Tory MP calling her unfit to hold office was the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Jews, which is funded, supported and administered by The Board of Deputies. The case against ‘B’ should have been dropped instantly and action taken against the troublemakers.  Instead, weeks later, ‘B’ was posting on her Facebook page that she was still suspended: “I can’t make any decisions about my personal, political, or professional future whilst this hangs over me. I am constantly tired and anxious, and feel I am making mistakes. I have lost paid work because of what has happened.”

Her suspension was finally lifted but she was “advised” not to post about it or she’d risk losing professional work on which her livelihood depended. That’s how nasty the Labour Party disciplinary machine is. Surely, if the Party lifts a suspension it should issue a public statement saying so.  Must the wrongly accused, after being needlessly humiliated, be left to pick up the pieces and struggle to re-establish their good name? In total ‘B’ had to wait 16 weeks under sentence. And all because of a trumped-up allegation that ought to have been immediately squashed.

As for ‘A’, he stopped answering emails and there has been nothing in the press. Was his suspension lifted? Was he similarly threatened if he said anything? I simply don’t know although I phoned and wrote to the Leader and the General Secretary for an explanation. The latter eventually replied that “the Labour Party cannot, and does not, share personal details about individual party members” and placing a member in administrative suspension “allows a process of investigation to be carried out whilst protecting the reputation of the Labour Party”. Bollox. How did the media get news of these suspensions in the first place? And never mind the damage done to the cowardly Party, what about the reputations of the two councillors and their months of anguish while working for their constituents? I wasn’t asking for case details. All I wanted was the answer to three simple questions:

# Had the suspensions been lifted?
# If so, had the Party issued a public statement to that effect?
# And had the false accusers been disciplined?

Silence… spineless, don’t-give-a-damn silence.

Are these two cases typical of the so-called anti-Semitism crisis? I have no way of knowing. But they show how the Party is run by enough crackpots on the inside without inviting impertinent interference from the outside.

Jews’ Ten Pledges vs Palestinians’ Eleven Red Lines

Anyone signing up to the BoD’s Ten Pledges should consider at the same time subscribing to the ‘Eleven Red Lines’ of anti-Palestinianism. Examples in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

(1) Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and nationhood, or actively conspiring to prevent the exercise of this right.

(2) Denial that Israel is in breach of international law in its continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

(3) Denial that Israel is an apartheid state according to the definition of the International Convention on Apartheid.

(4) Denial of the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians during the 1948 Nakba and of their right, and the right of their descendants, to return to their homeland.

(5) Denial that Palestinians have lived for hundreds of years in land now occupied by Israelis and have their own distinctive national identity and culture.

(6) Denial that the laws and policies which discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel (such as the recently passed Nation State Law) are inherently racist.

(7) Denial that there is widespread discrimination against Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories in matters of employment, housing, justice, education, water supply, etc, etc.

(8) Tolerating the killing or harming of Palestinians by violent settlers in the name of an extremist view of religion.

(9) Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Palestinians — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth of a Palestinian conspiracy to wipe Israel off the map.

(10) Justifying the collective punishment of Palestinians (prohibited under the Geneva Convention) in response to the acts of individuals or groups.

(11) Accusing the Palestinians as a people, of encouraging the Holocaust.

This working definition of anti-Palestinian racism, described as “hatred towards or prejudice against Palestinians as Palestinians”, holds up a mirror to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and was drafted by Jewish Voice For Labour, one of those fringe representative organisations the BoD insist Labour mustn’t engage with.

So here’s a simple test for the BoD: if they demand the Labour Party signs up to their Ten Pledges will they themselves embrace the Eleven Red Lines on anti-Palestinianism?

For the 0.5% not the 99.5%

 BY GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results, then the British Labour Party is institutionally insane and beyond recovery.

Labour’s  leadership candidates didn’t learn a thing from their Party’s humiliating electoral defeat last month. Instead of returning to universal anti racist politics consistent with so-called ‘Labour values,’ the compromised contenders for party leadership bow to the demands made by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a self-elected pressure group that claims to represent 0.5% of the British public.  Our Labour leadership candidates have attended to whims uttered by a tiny privileged voice while ignoring at least 99.5% of the British public. ‘For the very few and no one else,’ falls short of describing this political suicide.

This weekend, Labour’s first leadership hustings in Liverpool provided another spectacular display of the candidates’ spineless and unprincipled behaviour. Each waited his or her turn to utter embarrassing statements that they hoped would appease their party’s bitterest enemy.

During the event, leadership candidate Jess Phillips took a furious swipe at her rivals’ ‘alleged silence over anti-Semitism.’ She claimed thatLabour‘s failure on antisemitism had lost the party its “moral high ground” in the battle against racism. She referred in her comments to Rebecca Long-Bailey, Emily Thornberry and Sir Keir Starmer, who had all been part of Corbyn’s team.

Emily Thornberry, who just a week ago was on “her hands and knees” asking for Jewish “forgiveness,”  hit back at the accusations, saying she has always been clear that antisemitism “undermines us as a party.” Vowing to kick out so-called ‘antisemites,’ she said: “What the Israeli government is doing at the moment is completely unacceptable. But that is not the fault of the Jews.”

Someone should remind the ‘kneeling enthusiast’ that in his entire career, Corbyn never  criticised Jews, Judaism or Jewishness.  He did criticise Israel and Zionism, while making a clear distinction between Jews and Zionism. It is this critique of Israel and its politics that made Corbyn and the party ‘antisemitic’ in the eyes of the Zionist pressure groups. If Thornberry insists on getting on her hands and knees to ask for pardon, she ought to understand the ‘fault’ that has been attached to her party, otherwise, her conduct fits too well with the definition of insanity.

Frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer, candidate  Rebecca Long-Bailey and candidate Lisa Nandy all repeated the same line. Each vowed to repair Labour’s relationships with British Jews. There is nothing inherently wrong with altering the Party’s appeal to Jews but the leadership candidates must have failed to notice that Corbyn wasted his political energy as a Party leader trying to do just that.

In the early stages of his leadership, Corbyn’s  popularity was the result of the false perception that he was an ideologically principled leader. It was Corbyn’s anti war stand, opposition to Anglo-American imperialism and Zionism that so many liked. As time passed, it became clear that Corbyn, the person, had little or nothing in common with his revolutionary image. The man zigzagged around every possible topic including antisemitism and Zionism, let alone Brexit. The man who at one stage was perceived as a ‘Left Icon’ publicly transformed into a caricature of a political ‘left over.’ Corbyn lost the election because he was unfit to dwell in Number 10. The Brits realised that if Corbyn couldn’t handle a tiny foreign lobby, he would struggle to deal with Putin.

But there was a lesson entangled in Corbyn’s political demise.  When Corbyn showed a bit of  willingness to resist the Lobby’s pressure, his public support grew dramatically.  Two weeks before the election, while being interviewed by BBC’s Andrew Neil, Corbyn refused to apologise to the Jewish community. He took a firm stand and upheld a universal anti racist approach to discrimination.  The spike in the polls was immediate.  In some of the polls Labour halved the gap with the Tories. At the time, I was skeptical about Corbyn’s bravery.  I thought his reaction was likely accidental. Perhaps he wasn’t prepared for the question and forgot to crawl on demand. It only took a few days before Corbyn and his shadow chancellor  reverted to their usual apologetic take on the matter: the rest is history. Corbyn’s Labour suffered its worst electoral defeat in 84 years.

 Jeremy Corbyn interviewed by BBC’s Andrew Neil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tecUadXe82k

This week we learned that Labour’s leadership candidates haven’t learned a thing.  ‘Insanely’ they repeated Corbyn’s mistakes maybe expecting different results. Instead of producing a firm position consistent with their Party’s universal ideology, they competed to appease the whims and demands  of one hostile foreign lobby.

As in every tragic story, there was a glimpse of hope: MP Diane Abbott reported in a tweet from the Liverpool hustings that “Richard Burgon gets the most applause of anyone at the Liverpool deputy leadership hustings for his thoughtful response on the anti-semitism issue.”Diane Abbott MP@HackneyAbbott

So Richard Burgon gets the most applause of anyone at the Liverpool deputy leadership hustings for his thoughtful response on the anti-semitism issue @RichardBurgon #LabourLeader

View image on Twitter

890 · Hackney, LondonTwitter Ads info and privacy445 people are talking about this

Watching Deputy leader candidate Richard Burgon comments reveals that his seemingly  firm stand against the ‘antisemitism blitz,’ did indeed receive  warm applause from the Labour party members in the room.

Watch Richard Burgon’s attempt at reason: https://youtu.be/6S4czspYb9U

However, a careful listen to Burgon’s position clarifies that his stand on the issue is even more ridiculous than that of the other candidates. Burgon refuses to sign the BOD’s demands because he wants to work with the BOD as well as ‘all other Jewish organisations.” Burgon was referring particularly to the “minority within the minority, whether it would be LGBT Jewish people or Black Jewish people…”

The party that claimed to act for ‘the many not the few’ is now concerned with 5% (considered the demographics of sexual orientation and gender identity within western society) of the 0.5% of the entire British population. In mathematical terms,  Burgon rejects the BOD’s demands because he is concerned with a population that comprises 0.000025 of the country’s entire population. I haven’t  bothered to look at the percentage of Black Jews in Britain as there is no indication that such a community exists or is at all organized in Britain. And if it does exist, it has yet to oppose the BOD’s alleged hegemony.

Rather than looking  for a ‘minority within a minority’  to flirt with, Burgon and the Labour party  would do well to  reinstate the Party’s flat rejection of racism of all types. If such an approach comes short of satisfying the Israel Lobby, the Labour party is free to continue without their approval. This is the only meaning of acting as a true opposition party.  

It all paints a very grim picture. The Labour Party in its current form is an occupied zone. It is not occupied by Zionists, or Blairites, as we often hear, it is conquered by its own insanity.  The positive reaction to Burgon’s comments suggests that Labour supporters are still attuned to their party’s ideas. It is just the leadership that has drifted. 

Impeachment and Antisemitism

 BY GILAD ATZMON

An interview with Yonatan Stern, a Jewish Settler and an American patriot

by Gilad Atmon

https://www.unz.com/

A year ago I interviewed Yonatan Stern in a kosher pizzeria in Monticello, Catskills, New York. Yonatan is the man behind Cherev Gidon, an ‘Israeli Tactical Training Academy.’ Yonatan, an American who is also a former Israeli settler, correctly identified the demand for an Israeli-style military school to teach American Jews some of the IDF commando’s essentials for self-defense and the ability to fight back if necessary.

Yonatan was a perfect subject to interview: his views may be radical but they are based upon a sharp, coherent and consistent rationale. He was open in expressing his thoughts, which included some outrageous statements but which all left no doubt that he both meant what he said and said what he meant. I’ve observed that in America 2020, after half a century of the tyranny of correctness, very few Americans are brave enough to celebrate their constitutionally protected liberty to think and express themselves freely and authentically.

I heard from Yonatan, just before Christmas. “Things have been getting hot since we last met,” he wrote, referring to a string of attacks on Orthodox Jews in the NY area. He added, “Anyhow, all this antisemitism has brought me lots of clients so I’m keeping busy.”

This week Yonatan and I returned to the same kosher pizzeria in Monticello where we met before. Yonatan is very upset with Jewish Leftists. He believes that they are set to destroy the Jews, America and the whole world.

“My take on the current impeachment circus is that it is a typical display of subversive leftist Jewish attempts to undermine America from within.” In a manner of speech that is typical of so called ‘anti Semites’ Yonatan, a hard core ultra right wing Jew of the Rabbi Meir Kahane type, wrote to me that the “powerhouse behind this (impeachment) campaign are Jews, very visible Jews. And the worst part is that they are claiming it’s their “Jewish values” that are driving them to do this.”

I asked Yonatan who is a Jew, or rather what is a Jew and what are ‘Jewish values’? “The Jewish people is a nation, we are an ancient nation going back to the Biblical Israelites. But we are also a religion in a sense that we are guided by a religious dogma.” For Yonatan a Jew who is separated from the Torah can no more be called a Jew. Yonatan contends that Jewish liberals are engaged in a fraudulent exercise “pretending that multi cultural values and their misinterpretation of Tikun Olam are intrinsic to Judaism. [In fact] real Judaism of the Torah promotes things which Liberal Jews would consider brutality: such as slavery, polygamy, rape (at a time of a war), animal sacrifice, total prohibition on homosexuality etc.”

His answer surprised me and I asked Yonatan to elaborate on Judaism and slavery. Yonatan’s had no doubts. “Slavery is allowed in Judaism subject to rules of course.” I guess the take home message is that some Jews may oppose slavery however, the opposition to slavery is not a ‘Jewish value.’ They may even oppose slavery despite so-called ‘Jewish values.’

Like President Trump, Yonatan has harsh words on the Jewishness of the Jewish Left. “In reality these are assimilated, pork-eating, sabbath-desecrating fake Jews affiliated with the radical left wing Reform movement who ordain women as rabbis and conduct homosexual ‘marriages’ under a Chuppa. These Hellenist (Greek) frauds represent everything that is evil and ugly about American Judaism and they perpetuate the myth of the hook-nosed subversive Jew being behind every insidious attempt to undermine their host countries.”

It goes without saying that Yonatan doesn’t approve of the Jewish Left and its duplicitous mantra yet, I had to ask Yonatan whether he would be willing to militarily train a female rabbi or a gay cantor.

“The reality is this, these people caused the problem. It will come back to bite them in the end. Now should I come and save them from the trouble they caused me and all the Jews?”

“Their actions are endangering all of us, as many American gentiles see this rightly as an attempt to subvert our republic for which they fought and died, and identify the Jew as the subversive enemy behind it.” It is clear that in Yonatan’s universe, the Left Jew is by far the most dangerous element in Western society in general and in the USA in particular.

This fear of the assimilated and Leftist Jew may sound bizarre to those who are foreign to Jewish culture, history and tradition. The fear of Hellenist (Greek) Jews is as old as Judaism. There is nothing more frightening for rabbinical Jews than the thought that some of their brethren endorse the ethics of Goyim, subscribe to universalism, peace, harmony and equality. Zionism was born to stop assimilation; it promised to take the Diaspora Jews away to Palestine and to make them people like all other people. The anti Zionist Bund, an East European revolutionary Communist Jewish party that was literally born the same year as Zionism (1897), was also an attempt to prevent Jews from joining the ‘Hellenic’ route by offering Jews a tribal path within the context of a future Soviet revolution. Golda Meir thought the real threat to Jewish existence wasn’t the Arab-Israeli conflict but mixed marriages. Yonatan, like every observing Jew, knows that Hanukah is a celebration of the victory of traditional conservative Judaism over the Hellenic Jewish voices that threatened to liberate the Jews from themselves.

I asked Yonatan why Jews seem to be prone to subversive and revolutionary politics. For Yonatan, “there is a subversive and evil element within Judaism even before the Torah was given. There are numerous examples of the above in the Torah of Jews who are living in our midst and subverting our cause.” According to Yonatan Saul Alinsky is a perfect exemplar of such a revolutionary destructive Jew, as is Marx. I asked Yonatan whether Jesus should be added to the list of these subversive Jewish characters. Yonatan avoided the question probably because the wrong answering could jeopardise his wishful future alliance with the Christian Right.

Yonathan wrote to me that “it is usually the most identifiable (the Orthodox Jews ) who are the targets of the understandable antisemitic backlash.” It is people like himself, he wrote, who “are put into the position of having no choice but to fight right wing white Christian Conservatives, people who would be our natural allies under normal circumstances if these Hellenist Jews weren’t disgracing G-d’s name with their evil.”

I felt the need to correct Yonatan and pointed out to him that, at the moment, it isn’t ‘White nationalists’ who have targeted Orthodox Jews. It has been the Black communities in the NYC area who feel ethnically cleansed by the ever expanding Orthodox ghettos. I asked Yonatan what is at the core of this apparently emerging Jew/Black street war? Does it have something to do with Orthodox Jewish communities who may display some unethical tactics?

Yonatan is not impressed with Black Americans. For some reason he sees the clash between Jewish Orthodox and Black communities as a manifestation of a ‘Left’ revolutionary act. I pointed out to Yonatan that there is nothing remotely ‘lefty’ in recent attacks on orthodox communities. Yonatan then expressed some ardent racist views. I quote them not because they are true, as they are not, but to provide an accurate portrayal of Yonathan’s world view. He said that we are dealing with “wild people, they have been in America as long as Whites have been here. They are free of slavery for over 150 years. They enjoy the same freedom as whites, segregation ended 50 years ago… Despite that look where are they now, living on welfare, broken families, using crack, mayhem. Yet look at the Jews, we came over at the late 1800s and early 19th century. And look where we have come, we came poor, with rugs on our backs, we worked in sweatshops. We are now at the head of society. Trump’s son in law is Jewish, the Jews are the biggest bankers, we control the Fed, we control Hollywood, all those lawyers, the best attorneys, the best accountants, all the biggest doctors, we have wealth, we have power, yet this proportionate to our size we are only 2%of the population. Look at the Black man. He is 13% of the population, he for the most part, is living in poverty. They feel a tremendous sense of jealousy towards us which turns into a tremendous blood-thirsty hate.”

I pointed out to Yonatan that the recent attacks in NYC didn’t target Jewish bankers, doctors or lawyers but Orthodox Jews who tend to be poor and dependent on income support. Yonatan thinks this is simply because the Orthodox Jews are easily identifiable as Jews. I pointed to Yonatan that rabbinical communities have used some barbarian expansionist tactics to cleanse Blacks and others from areas they want to expand into such as Kiryas Joel, Crown Heights, New Jersey City etc. Yonatan admitted that this is true. The Jewish orthodox communities do indeed use some “unethical means” to accomplish their goal but, he said, they do not behave that way exclusively to Blacks but use such means against Whites as well. Yonatan seems to be saying that Orthodox Jews do not discriminate against Black people in particular, they are, in general, dismissive of others.

Yonatan believes that “Trump is the best friend the Jews have ever had and he has devoted so much effort to standing up for us and defending us…The least we owe him is to stand up for him against this evil leftist Jewish plot to overthrow the greatest hope America has had in many generations. It is our job to be a light onto the nations and that is exactly what we must do – by fighting our enemy from within, the leftist, multiculturalist, reform Jews.”

When I asked Yonatan whether we should expect an open battle between the so-called ‘real Jews’ and the ‘Leftist’ ones any time soon he said he thought so. Yonatan believes that the so-called Goyim do not have the ability to confront or even to address the symptoms of Left Jews: others don’t even begin to understand the depth of the problem. Only ‘real Jews’ can deal with the culturally invasive menace and eventually save the Jews, liberate America and the rest of the world. America is divided, he said, we are “digging in preparing for a boogaloo,” the coming all out civil war between American patriots who adhere to ‘Judeo-Christian values’ and the so called multi cultural left. In placing this future conflict within the context of the American southern/northern division Yonatan sees himself as a contemporary Confederate platoon.

I ended by asking Yonatan whether he can see that the situation in America in some ways resembles Germany in the 1930s. “Certainly,” he said.


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

%d bloggers like this: