The Palestinians and the “State” Delusion

By: Rashid Shahin

After over 20 years of the futile “negotiations” the whole world (including the Palestinians) agrees that it has been fruitless.  It was aimless negotiations but a waste of time during which the occupation state of Israel has succeeded to shuffle the occupied land upside down and create deep demographic changes through accelerating the settlement that has never been done before.

Despite all the facts on the ground, some still hope to believe in that mirage and works to revive life in the dead body of the Oslo Accord. Still, some Palestinians are looking for an exit of some sort that would save them some self respect, or what has remained from their self respect, to prove that they can get something from a process that has resulted in nothing but more land grab, building settlements for more settlers obsessed with Talmudic heresies.

When talking of negotiations between enemies, it should be agreed upon from the beginning that there is a possibility for each party to recognize the other which  doesn’t exist in the Palestinian-zionist case. The Zionist party and since the very beginning of the struggle doesn’t recognize the existence of the Palestinian people, in the first place which was very clear from their deceptive slogan that was created in the early twentieth century of “a land without people to a people without land”.


Accordingly, the Palestinian leadership should take this in consideration and understand the fact that the Oslo process will never lead to a durable or comprehensive peace with the Zionists, with a state that was created initially by terrorist groups who committed heinous crimes in documented massacres against the Palestinian people to establish their atrocious states built on Talmudic heresies, on the rubble of the Palestinian people.

Gambling to reach to any peaceful agreement, even at the minimum level, with the Zionist state of gangsters (especially at the deteriorating Arab situation) is more futile than it was at the beginning of the Oslo process in Madrid Peace Conferencesupported by the first Intifada which was continued secretly later on in the suspicious Oslo Agreement.

Trying to copy the Iranian style (of negotiating) and identifying with it can’t work in the Palestinian case and dragging the situation into the Syrian case is a leap into the unknown.

Working at going back to the same futile negotiations again is nothing but a fruitless game that should be stopped especially after the facts on the ground imposed by the Zionist occupation, which is very clear not only to the Palestinian people in the street but also to all the world leaders.

Finally, we think that the status cue is a thousand times better than pursuing the mirage of the endless negotiations, especially it is clearer now (which is a fact that we should admit) that the Zionist occupation state is not intending to reach to a peaceful settlement for the struggle, and it is not ready ( as it has never been  before) to agree that the Palestinians get an independent state with Jerusalem its capital, and needless to mention the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return.

The utmost reconciliation that the Zionist state might be willing to is to give the Palestinians an “expanded” autonomy, or a state with two different statuses, one to include the West Bank with annexing some of the bordering Palestinian towns that the Zionists want to get rid of, which is a typical racist style. OR, full occupation and annexing the West Bank. Accordingly we call to stop those futile negotiations with the Zionists that will end into nothing for the Palestinians.


Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration


By Robert Fisk

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.


Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.

On an official visit to Israel in 1986, Thatcher said that she regarded discussion of Jerusalem as “internal politics”. In 2001, Tony Blair’s government granted 90 arms exports licences to Israel for “defensive” weapons – including torpedoes, armoured vehicles, bombs and missiles. There is much, much more of this in Cronin’s book, including Blair’s useless and disgraceful period as “peace” envoy to the Middle East and the growing business contracts between British companies and Israeli arms providers – to the extent that the British army ended up deploying Israeli-made drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside the EU, Theresa May’s Britain will maintain its close relations with Israel as a priority; hence May’s stated desire less than a month ago to sign a bilateral free trade agreement with Israel. This coincided with an Israeli attack on Gaza and a Knesset vote to confiscate – ie, steal – yet more lands from Palestinians in the West Bank.

From the day that Herbert Samuel, deputy leader of the Liberal Party and former (Jewish) High Commissioner for Palestine, said in the House of Commons in 1930 that Arabs “do migrate easily”, it seems that Britain has faithfully followed Balfour’s policies. More than 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted in their catastrophe, Cronin writes. Generations of dispossessed would grow up in the camps. Today, there are around five million registered Palestinian refugees. Britain was the midwife of that expulsion.

And this summer, we shall again be exhorted by Theresa May to remember the Balfour Declaration with “pride”.

نار عين الحلوة في خدمة مشروع التوطين و… أبعد؟

مارس 2, 2017

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

عندما أعلن ترامب خطته بشأن حماية اميركا من النازحين والمهاجرين وبدأ في تنفيذها بقرار منع سفر مواطني سبع دول عربية وإسلامية الى اميركا، أرفق الخطة بما أسماه «حل للاجئين» يتضمّن إنشاء مناطق آمنة، والبحث في توطينهم في مناطق اللجوء الحالية أو مناطق أخرى. وللوهلة الأولى انصرف ذهن معظم المتابعين الى النازحين السوريين الذين لجأوا الى دول الجوار أو إلى أبعد منها، وغاب عنهم أن خطة ترامب تعني كل لاجئ بما في ذلك اللاجئون الفلسطينيون يعزّز هذا القول إن ترامب نفسه أعلن عن تخلي اميركا عن حل الدولتين للقضية الفلسطينية وتخلّيه عن أي حل لا يرضى به الطرفان الفلسطيني و«الإسرائيلي» معاً، وبما أن «إسرائيل» وهي الفريق الأقوى حالياً في المعادلة في مواجهة الفلسطينيين بما أنها لا ترضى بعودة اللاجئين الى أرضهم مهما كانت شروطها وظروفها، فيكون طبيعياً القول بان أي حل تطرحه للقضية الفلسطينية سيكون عبر مدخل إلزامي هو توطين الفلسطينيين في أماكنهم لجوئهم الحالية، ومنها لبنان الذي يستضيف حالياً ما يزيد عن 400 الف لاجئ فلسطيني، ربعهم يسكنون في مخيم عين الحلوة الذي يعتبر من أكبر المخيمات الفلسطينية في المنطقة كلها.

وعندما قام رئيس السلطة الفلسطينية المنبثقة عن اتفاقية أوسلو محمود عباس الى لبنان، أبدى تساهلاً مفاجئاً حيال السلاح الفلسطيني انقلب فيه على كل مواقف منظمة التحرير السابقة في ما خصّ أمن المخيمات. حيث كان قديماً أي حديث عن دخول الجيش اللبناني الى المخيمات وضبط الأوضاع فيها، كما كانت قبل العام 1967، من المحرّمات لأنه كما كانت الذريعة انه سيؤدي الى المسّ بالبندقية الفلسطينية ومنعها من أداء الدور المطلوب منها في المقاومة وفي المحافظة على خصوصية تحتاجها المخيمات من أجل بقائها شاهداً على التهجير ومنجماً للمقاومة وطريقاً للعودة الى فلسطين. وقد قبل لبنان بقناعة أو تحت ضغط الأمر الواقع بمعادلة «أمن المخيمات للمقاومة الفلسطينية شرط عدم انتهاك الأمن اللبناني خارجها»، ونظمت الاتفاقيات الخطية او الضمنية الواقعية على اساس هذه المعادلة. وفجأة أتى محمود عباس وتنازل عن «المكاسب الفلسطينية والخصوصية الأمنية الفلسطينية»، بموجب المعادلة ويطلب دخول الجيش اللبناني إلى المخيمات ونزع سلاح الفلسطينيين منها.

في المبدأ لا يمكن أن يرفض لبناني واحد في السلطة كان أم كان خارجها العرض الفلسطيني الرسمي الذي قدّمه محمود عباس، لأنه موقف يستجيب للمنطق السيادي للدولة المسؤولة عن الأمن في كل أراضيها، ولكن تفسير الموقف وتحليله على ضوء ما تقدم وفي الظروف المتشكّلة في المنطقة يثير الريبة والهواجس، ربطاً بما تبعه مباشرة من اندلاع مواجهات دامية داخل مخيم عين الحلوة أدّت في أقل من 4 أيام الى تهجير أكثر من ثلث سكان المخيم الى خارجه طلباً للملاذ الآمن بعيداً عن نار المسلحين. ثم فاقم الهواجس ما تسبب به النزاع المسلح من آثار وتداعيات امتددت الى الخارج وأدت الى قطع طريق الجنوب بالقنص الذي ليس له أي مبرر والذي استهدف كل الطرق المحاذية للمخيم من الغرب والتي تشكل الممر والمعبر الإجباري للجنوب عبر صيدا بوابة الجنوب الرئيسية.

هذا المشهد، بما ظهر منه أو ما بقي مستوراً يوحي او يجعل المتابع يتصور بأن النزاع المسلح في عين الحلوة ليس نزاعاً عفوياً عابراً بل هو عملية مدبرة تتعدى الفرقاء المحليين وترتبط بخطة دولية أبعد من صيدا وأبعد من لبنان ترمي الى تحقيق اكثر من هدف. وهنا لا يمكن لنا أن نغيب عن المشهد ما يروج له أو يكثر تداوله من احاديث وتسريبات او تهديدات «إسرائيلية» بالقيام بعملية عسكرية خاطفة في لبنان تستهدف المقاومة التي باتت تشكل كابوساً مرعباً لـ»إسرائيل»، بشكل تفاقم أثره بعد الخطاب الخطير الأخير للسيد حسن نصرالله الذي اطلق فيه التهديد الاستراتيجي المثلّث الرؤوس التي اذا استهدفت بنار المقاومة حرمت «إسرائيل» من أي مكان أو ملاذ آمن داخلها حيفا ديمونا- باخرة الأمونيا في البحر .

وعلى هذا الأساس نرى أن نار مخيم عين الحلوة التي ترافق إضرامها مع زيارة محمود عباس والأحاديث عن مشاريع التوطين والتهديد بالعدوان «الإسرائيلي» على لبنان ترمي أو قد تكون ترمي الى تحقيق اهداف ثلاثة أساسية:

تهجير سكان المخيم في مرحلة أولى، ثم تدمير المخيم على غرار ما حصل في مخيمات أخرى منذ العام 1945 في لبنان وسورية تل الزعتر النبطية نهر البارد اليرموك . وبالتالي التخلص من عبء أكبر مخيم في لبنان وتذويب سكانه في المناطق الآهلة في لبنان تمهيداً أو تسهيلاً للتوطين.

قطع طريق الجنوب ما يشكل إرباكاً أو إرهاقاً لسكانه وهو بيئة المقاومة وحضنها، ما يؤثر على المقاومة مباشرة وغير مباشرة ويمسّ بحريّة تنقلها ويعقّد عملها الدفاعي، الامر الذي يسهّل على «إسرائيل»، إذا قررت العدوان، قيامها به.

القاء أعباء أمنية إضافية على كاهل الجيش اللبناني، بما يشكل ارهاقاً له يؤثر على أدائه العملاني والاستخباري والأمني المميز حالياً في مواجهة الإرهاب. الامر الذي ينعكس على الامن والاستقرار في لبنان كله ويشكل ضربة موجعة للعهد الجديد الذي جاهر وفاخر بالتكامل الدفاعي بين الجيش اللبناني والمقاومة.

وعلى هذا الأساس نرى أن ما يجري في عين الحلوة ليس شأناً فلسطينياً، كما يحاولون الإيحاء وليس شأناً صيداوياً، كما يحاول البعض إظهاره، بل هو شأن لبناني استراتيجي وموضوع رئيسي من جزئيات القضية الفلسطينية التي يعملون على تصفيتها، فضلاً عن كونه قضية لا تنفصل عن الصراع المحتدم في المنطقة بين محور المقاومة وأعدائه وخصومه. ولذلك نرى ان مواجهة الأمر ينبغي ان تكون بأقصى درجات الحرص والحسم من قبل الدولة اللبنانية وجيشها والمقاومة والشعب اللبناني عامة، والجنوبيين خاصة، بدءاً بسكان صيدا المتضررين الأول مما يحصل. وحذار الاستخفاف بما يحصل في ظل تسارع الأحداث في المنطقة التي يكتب فيها تاريخ يُرسى عبره نظام سيحكمها لمئة عام أو أكثر.

(Visited 58 times, 58 visits today)

Related Videos

Related Articles

Dr. Mohammed Sadiq al-Husseini: On Sixth International Conference for Supporting the Palestinian Intifada

Related Videos

Supporting Palestinian Intifada Tops Closing Statement of Iran Conference

February 22, 2017


The closing statement of the sixth International conference “To support the Palestinian Intifada” held in Tehran highlighted on Tuesday the importance of the Palestinian cause, calling on supporting it and avoiding marginalizing it amid the regional crises.

The statement also hailed the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements, stressing their role in confronting the Zionist entity.

It also called on the international organizations to denounce and deter the Israeli aggressions, warning some Arab and Muslim countries against normalizing ties with the Zionist entity.

The statement added that the US administration intention to move the Zionist entity capital into Al-Quds must draw a response from the Arab and Muslim states by closing their embassies in the United States.

Finally, the statement highly appreciated the Iranian people sacrifices for the sake of the Palestinian cause.

The Iranian capital, Tehran, hosted on Tuesday and Wednesday an international forum in support of the Palestinian cause, with hundreds of foreign guests, including senior Palestinian leaders and officials of Muslim nations, in attendance.

Source: Al-Manar Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

Indian-Jewish ‘Lost Tribe’ Members to Settle in Occupied Palestine

 photo losttribe_zpsqxmkevkp.jpg

[ Ed. note -We now have a new group of “Jewish settlers” coming to lay claim to Palestinian land–only in this case they are coming all the way from India. I received the link to the following article by email sent from a friend of mine who comments as follows:

“Been to Nazareth…and Nazarene Illit is a duplicate suburb that bisects the Palestinian community of Nazareth…a beautiful small hilly small city w/lovely Palestinian churches and mosques in the older part but the govt will use these newly “chosen” to upset the ongoing struggles. The Naz.Illit is strictly jewish SETTLER….pushing them into a traditional Christian city of Nazareth….having already installed a BAPTIST EVANGELICAL COLLEGE from central Texas to play divide and conquer there with young people. A total absolute mess. Chaos reigns. Wish you could see the postcard beauty of Nazareth from every angle as it used to be….with a gigantic church at the very top of the mountain there….huge tourist draw… with the influx of these 3000 Beni Menashe Indians followed by another 7000 waiting to travel there thus 10,000 new immigrants influx should drive all sorts of wedges between many different groups….an incidious plan crafted to cause the most chaos possible no doubt.”

The new arrivals will be settled in the town of Nazareth Illit, also called Upper Nazareth, whose former mayor, Shimon Gapso, once issued a ban on Christmas trees. This putative “lost tribe” of Jews, who are being transplanted from northern India, is referred to as the Bnei Menashe. Wikipedia is not the best source of information on Middle East issues, but here is what they say about them:

The Bnei Menashe are made up of Mizo, Kuki and Chin peoples, who all speak Tibeto-Burman languages, and whose ancestors migrated into northeast India from Burma mostly in the 17th and 18th centuries…Prior to conversion in the 19th century to Christianity by Welsh Baptist missionaries, the Chin, Kuki, and Mizo peoples were animists; among their practices were ritual headhunting.[5] Since the late 20th century, some of these peoples have begun following Messianic Judaism. The Bnei Menashe are a small group who started studying and practicing Judaism since the 1970s in a desire to return to what they believe is the religion of their ancestors. The total population of Manipur and Mizoram is more than 3.7 million.

The Bnei Menashe number below 9,000; several hundred have emigrated to Israel. In 2003–2004 DNA testing showed that several hundred men of this group had no evidence of Middle Eastern ancestry.

Sounds very much like another case of those who “claim to be Jews, but are not.” Meanwhile, Palestinians who have been exiled from their homeland still are denied the right of return. The author of the JTA article below, however, seems to think that’s fine and dandy.


By Josefin Dolsten

(JTA) — One hundred and two members of the Jewish community in India, who trace their heritage to one of Israel’s lost tribes, are moving to Israel this week.

The immigrants, who hail from the northeastern Indian state of Mizoram — home to the second largest concentration of the country’s Bnei Menashe community, as they are called — will arrive in Israel on Tuesday and Thursday. The move is being facilitated by Shavei Israel, a nonprofit that seeks to connect “lost” and “hidden” Jews to the Jewish state.

The group plans to live in the city of Nazareth Illit, where other members of their community have already settled. Some 3,000 Bnei Menashe have immigrated to Israel in recent years, with another 7,000 remaining in India.

Their move represents the first time in three years that members of the Bnei Menashe community from Mizoram have moved to Israel, according to a statement by Shavei Israel.

“After 27 centuries of exile, this lost tribe of Israel is truly coming home,” said Shavei Israel founder Michael Freund. “But we will not rest until all the remaining Bnei Menashe still in India are able to make aliyah as well.”

Freund, a conservative writer and former aide to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said his organization was hoping to bring more than 700 Jews from India to Israel this year.

In December, as they have in years past, thousands of members of the Bnei Menashe community gathered to celebrate Hanukkah in the town of Churachandpur, in the northeastern state of Manipur.

Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.


“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”


On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.


%d bloggers like this: