Living Amongst Others

living amongst others.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

A few days ago Vanity Fair,  the same outlet that once attempted to block the exposé of monster pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, published an article by Venessa Grigoriadis that provides some details of  Epstein’s friend and alleged ‘co-conspirator’ Ghislaine Maxwell.

Multiple victims claim that Maxwell often brought girls to Epstein and that she was an active sexual participant as well. According to Vanity Fair, “a source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she’d drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a phone job for them, ‘and you’ll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I’ll change your life….’”  Vanity Fair’s source added: “When I asked what she thought of the underage girls, she looked at me and said, ‘they’re nothing, these girls. They are trash.”

This is gossipy information, but it seems consistent with what we have learned about Epstein and his ring. Those familiar with Maxwell family history won’t be shocked that Maxwell is quoted calling the girls “trash.” Daddy Maxwell plundered the lifetime pensions of his workers for his own use. He was alleged to be a Mossad agent.  Not many know that Daddy Maxwell was also under police investigation for war crimes just before he drowned. Metropolitan Detectives were preparing to interview Maxwell, once a decorated captain in the British army, about an allegation that he murdered the unarmed mayor of a German City back in 1945.

One may say ‘like father like daughter’. But the total dismissal of otherness and human life is not limited to the Maxwells. Those of us who follow the unfolding Palestinian tragedy are pretty familiar with the institutional disregard to human life that is symptomatic of Israeli policy and is supported by its forceful lobby around the world. The saga of disgraceful conduct on the part of Epstein and others in his orbit suggests that the dismissal of otherness is characteristic of a wide circuit of those affiliated ideologically, politically and spiritually with Zion.

During an interview with Miami news station WPLG  Alan Dershowitz not only bashed one of his accusers, calling her an “admitted prostitute and a serial liar” but claimed that the then-teen was not victimized and in fact “made her own decisions in life.” I am not in a position to determine whether Dershowitz is guilty of sex crimes (which he denies) but this kind of language is the last thing you would expect from a retired Ivy League law professor. One wouldn’t imagine that a law ‘scholar’ would refer to an alleged victim of sex trafficking as ‘an admitted prostitute.’ Nor would one expect a veteran ‘law scholar’ to suggest that the child victim of sexual abuse by a registered sex offender was actually ‘making her own decisions in life.’ But this is exactly what we hear from Alan Dershowitz. No doubt one of the most vocal Zionist advocates around.

Watch the entire interview:

The disregard of others and the dismissal of human life, symptomatic of the Epstein Orbit, extends beyond ethnicity, religious barriers and class. Indeed, we read in various outlets that Leslie Wexner, long standing patron of Epstein, is accused by some of having some connection to the murder of  Arthur Shapiro — a Jewish lawyer who was killed in a 1985 ‘mob-style murder’. Shapiro’s doomed soul was resurrected when the Columbus, Ohio Police released the controversial—and once believed destroyed—document investigating his death.  Presumably Shapiro knew too much.  And author Daniel Halper claims that Israel and its operators within American politics have not refrained from blackmailing even an American president.

According to Halper, Israel attempted to use tapes of former US president Bill Clinton’s steamy sex chats with intern Monica Lewinsky to leverage the release of Jonathan Pollard. Halper claims that during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, held in Maryland in 1998, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled Bill Clinton aside to press for Pollard’s release.  “The Israelis present at Wye River had a new tactic for their negotiations–they’d overheard Clinton and Monica and had it on tape. Not wanting to directly threaten the powerful American president, a crucial Israeli ally, Clinton was told that the Israeli government had thrown the tapes away. But the very mention of them was enough to constitute a form of blackmail,” Halper wrote,  “according to information provided by a CIA source, a stricken Clinton appeared to buckle.”

This horrific narrative of how Israel allegedly blackmailed an American president initially surfaced in 1999.  In his book  Gideon’s Spies, author Gordon Thomas claimed that the Mossad had collected some 30 hours’ worth of phone sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and was using them to blackmail the US or to protect a deeply-embedded mole in the White House.

The Clintons have often been referred to in relation to the Epstein affair.  It is likely, that as with the young women Epstein abused, the Clintons and other prominent Americans were also ‘victims’ so to say.

I now believe that Epstein was just a player in a huge crime syndicate that often seems to operate in large parts of American life, its politics, culture, academia and, of course, finance. In such a vile apparatus Epstein ran an amusement park.  He was never ‘a financier.’ He specialized in accumulating filth that could be used to extract dollars or other favours. In America in 2019 just about every politician at any level except probably Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib has been reduced into a Zionist puppet. Every prominent American is subject to direct or indirect Zionist pressure of one kind or another.

Igor Ogorodnev wrote yesterday on Russia Today that, “the media has wilfully misinterpreted Donald Trump’s words to portray the most pro-Israel US president in history as an anti-Semite. It makes more sense to chide him for sacrificing US interests to please Benjamin Netanyahu.” Here is my practical advice for Americans. Instead of accusing Trump of being an ‘anti-Semite,’ ask instead why your president is more loyal to Israel than most Israelis, let alone Jews.

To follow the path that led to Jeffrey Epstein’s plea deal listen to this spectacular Jake Morphonios’s podcast

Why Continuity


Jewish continuity.jpg


by Eve Mykytyn

Marissa Brostoff and Noah Kulwin wrote an opinion piece about the Epstein scandal in the self-described leftist outlet Jewish Currents. Entitled “The Right Kind of Continuity,”  the article is a ‘who is to blame’ piece. Is Epstein’s scandal peculiarly Jewish?  If so, which Jews are to blame? Not surprisingly, their analysis finds a few very rich and generally right wing Jews guilty. First the authors point to the number of Jews seemingly involved with Epstein,  even noting that Woody Allen was the first name in Epstein’s little Black Book. But they dismiss the significance of the disproportionate number of Jews friendly with Epstein,  concluding that since “[a]fter all, Epstein’s friends also included plenty of prominent non-Jews (Donald Trump, for instance),” Jews were not particularly to blame.

Instead, the authors find that Epstein presents a ‘Jewish’ scandal because most of the men alleged  to have financed his operation are Jewish. Epstein was not, as this article and many others describe him,  a ‘financier,’ a term Oxford defines as “[a] person concerned in the management of large amounts of money on behalf of [others].”  As of now it is unclear if and how much money  Epstein was ever authorized to invest. Epstein was a taker of money, and was long tied to billionaire Leslie Wexner and with a number of other wealthy Jews including Leon Black of  Apollo Global Management and Glenn Dubion of Highbridge Capital.

Why did these wealthy men finance Epstein?  Most have speculated that Epstein ran an intelligence operation or that he was blackmailing his benefactors.  The authors take a different approach. They point out that Wexner, along with other Jewish billionaires such as Adelson and Bronfman (neither of whom are connected to Epstein) , have given hundreds of millions of dollars to Jewish charities that  fight assimilation. Apparently these men believe that ‘Jewish continuity’ is declining among American Jews as evidenced by statistics that  “synagogue membership and affinity for Israel were in decline, interfaith marriage was up, and Jewish fertility rates were down.”

This claim is dubious, The Jerusalem Post recently noted that the rate of participation in Jewish Life by American Jews has been “remarkably stable”, and that the children of intermarried couples  identify as Jews at the incredible rate of 80%.

But Steven M. Cohen, academic and demographer for Jewish charities, produced countless statistical reports of assimilation for wealthy donors emphasizing that “if they wanted American Jewish life to continue, they would have to prioritize the goals of “creating more Jewish marriages and filling more Jewish baby carriages.” (Cohen was himself dismissed from Hebrew Union College last year following accusations  of serial sexual harassment.)

Reproduction, the article claims, both biological and social, is at the heart of ‘Jewish continuity’ programming.

In the weirdest story to emerge from the Epstein scandal, the New York Times wrote that  Epstein was desperate to replicate himself and planned to use his New Mexico compound to fulfill his desire “to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating [large numbers of] women…”  The article claims Epstein’s desire for clones was different only in degree from  the ‘Jewish continuity project, finding little difference between Epstein reproducing himself and  the Jewish establishment that “poured millions of dollars into [reproducing] its own image.” After all, the authors ask,  “Which is the greater narcissism?”

After finding  the financial backers of ‘Jewish continuity’ guilty of self love, the authors present  an extraordinary argument. They claim that since Jewish continuity requires women to gestate  reproductions of Jewish men, all women are reduced to reproductive units, and that “the focus on reproductive project ha[s] continued … to enable the abuses that come along with it.”  That is; all that money focused on replicating themselves had the effect of viewing women as baby making machines and that this characterization of Jewish women accounts for the sexual atrocities perpetrated by Epstein and his cohorts. This is, I think, too large a leap. How is it that the desire for more Jewish babies leads to abuse of women?

Where is the connection between fighting assimilation and having sexual encounters with underage non Jewish girls?  Further, how do they explain the wealthy Jews involved with Epstein who have no connection to the Jewish continuity project ?

Why do the authors make this peculiar claim based on so little evidence? My guess is that the authors identify as Jewish, but they do not want to bear any responsibility for the behavior of some other Jews. They establish their innocence and that of most other Jews by sectioning off just a small number of very wealthy Jews and, finding them peculiarly focused on reproduction, claim they are prone to acts of sexual abuse. This makes the Epstein scandal not a Jewish problem, but a narcissistic fault in just a few Jews.

More likely,  Epstein and many others operated with a sense of impunity. Some of these people were, as the article points out, enamored with reproducing themselves. The only connection I can see between Jewish continuity and Epstein is that the focus on Judaism might have contributed to the apparent belief among some Jews that non Jews are not important and that mistreatment of them is not a problem.

When I wrote this article, Epstein was alive and well in the hands of MCC. Now we have been informed that Epstein committed suicide, and we have no information on whether he left behind any little Epsteins.


The Banality of Good, last segment-Finding the Way Home

February 07, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

If Jews can identify with their ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes!

If Jews can identify with their ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes!

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   While not many people feel bounded with the soil nowadays, many people would argue that a spiritual home is not enough. I would agree. Identity groups seem to be an answer. But as you rightly said, identitarian views do not make a consistent argument for the universal, especially in a context of victimization. For others home is still a certain place they defend against the invasion of foreigners or wind turbines, which isn’t exactly a universal argument either.

Isn’t following a universal ethos a contradiction to the concept of home? And if not, how do we find our way?

Gilad:  Not at all, the bond to the soil, the love of the land, and even biological identitarianism can become universal as long as you accept that it applies to everyone. I am obviously anti- identitarian, but I do accept that, if Jews, Lesbians, Transsexual and Black can identify politically with their biology, then Whites can also do the same.  If Jews can identify with their imaginary  ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes. In short every idea including egoism can turn into a universal ethos once it is stripped of exceptionalism.  And to address your question, ‘home’ can be a universal idea as long as we set universal conditions to facilitate such an idea. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a great test case. At the moment Israel is a chauvinist Jewish State. For Israel to become a universal adventure, it has to transcend itself into a ‘State of its Citizens.’  This idea was suggested by Palestinian-Israeli Knesset Member Azmi Bishara, soon after he coined this genius motto he had to run for his life.

Clara:   You have explained that Zionism was the promise to civilize the diaspora Jews by means of ‘homecoming’, making them people like all other people, a collective of people bonded with the soil and living in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

So is home, for you, living in peace with oneself and the universe, so to speak?

Gilad: To start with I am not a Zionist and making myself ‘people like all other people’ isn’t my objective. I also contend that making Jews people like all other people is a problematic motto for other people do not want to resemble other people.  Living in peace and loving my neighbors isn’t an objective for me but rather the way in which I live my life. However, my relationship with myself is a different matter all together. I, in fact, live in peace and harmony with my neighbours despite my upbringing and early indoctrination: despite the goy hatred, the chosenness, and the constant Shoah brainwashing. I had to clear  all those out of my system. This is exactly where self-hatred becomes a positive force towards harmony and reconciliation. 

 Clara:   I must admit, that when you first talked about self-hate being the path to the universal, I strongly disagreed. I thought it was exactly the path to hundreds of atomic bombs threatening the world. But I guess I didn’t grasp what you were saying at all. It is about that ‘know thyself’ moment in your life when you discovered you were ‘the Nazi here’ which changed everything, isn’t it?

 So I agree with you if you define self-hate as being able to look at yourself in a detached and self-critical way and self-love as not being able to do that. It needs that special ugly moment to develop such a capacity. To be honest, I have had such moments, too. But self-hate alone cannot be the way to harmony. I think you need to be able to love yourself to be able to love others. And btw, even though you call yourself a self-hater, I do not think that you hate yourself so much. You actually seem to be quite in peace with yourself and the world around you (a long as there is no smear campaign in sight).

Gilad: You are obviously correct. Let me address your point in a humorous manner. If you define Jewishness as an intense form of self-love, then Jewish self-hatred can be realised as ‘loving oneself hating oneself.’ We obviously accept that self hate is a metaphorical notion. I wouldn’t necessarily argue that it is a universal path. But it is clearly a recognized Jewish path towards the universal. It is a method of breaking out of intellectual and spiritual stagnation. I better admit that I love myself hating myself, this is probably what is left of the Jew in me. But I also love reading and exchanging with other self haters. For me the so-called self haters, Jesus, Spinoza, Weininger, Marx were whistleblowers, as we call them these days, they actually introduced a scope of harmony.

Clara:   We are talking about a painful individual process here. Can such a process be applied to a group? You said before that ‘there is no collective remedy to the Jewish question. If Jews want to rescue themselves, they must break out alone in the night, in the dark with the hope that they meet the universal at daybreak.

 Gilad: Yes, this is my view. There is no collective remedy for the Jewish question.  Why? Because people who are tied to each other by a phantasmic exceptionalist notion of race, biology or blood, will always fall into the same chauvinist racist trap. This is what happened to Zionism, it promised to emancipate the Jews from themselves but ended erecting the biggest ghetto walls known to man. This is exactly the trap the Jewish anti Zionist have fallen into. They promised to emancipate the Jews from the Zionist but ended operating within privileged racially oriented political ghettos that are identical with Zion.

Clara:   Isn’t that the end of any collective effort to fight for a peaceful and more just world?

Gilad: On the contrary, this is where we launch into a search for ethics in ourselves. This is where we depart from Jerusalem (the city of mitzvoth / commandments) and reinstate Athens (the capital of reason) once again. We dig into the meaning of being human regardless of our gender, race or skin colour. We leave the tribal behind and re-launch our expedition towards the universal.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg


American Society isn’t a Zoo and White People Aren’t Monkeys

August 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

bienart in the zoo.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon  

How to make well-meaning Americans into antisemites?

Make sure they read Peter Beinart’s Forward article,  The One Thing Jews Should Be Doing To Combat White Supremacy.

Beinart, a light Zionist ‘intellectual’  has kindly revealed how American Jews reacted when they heard the “neo-Nazis” chant, “Jews will not replace us.”  Some were fearful,  but, Beinart asserts, many others were somehow amused by it. “Replace you? Where, behind the counter at Wendy’s? We’re successful, industrious, upper-middle class. You’re the dregs of society. Replace you? Don’t kid yourselves. When it comes to America’s class hierarchy, we replaced you and your kind long ago.”

One might advise Beinart that looking down on Goyim and calling them ‘neo Nazis’ and ‘supremacists’ while simultaneously engaging in his own tribal self-love, supremacist exercise is a very dangerous game. 

Beinart claims that ‘white nationalists’ are largely a dysfunctional group of economy victims. “Studies show that in purely economic terms, white supremacists don’t differ much from the population as a whole. But they do differ from Jews, who are America’s wealthiest religious group.”

But “they [the ‘neo Nazis’] don’t just differ financially,” Beinart continues,  “they differ culturally, too. They are far less likely to have been raised in stable homes.” Beinart then quotes a study by the Southern Poverty Law Center that points out that“one of the most common background characteristics [of ‘neo nazis’] is some kind of family disruption, whether that be divorce or parental abandonment, a parent becoming incarcerated, or substance abuse by one or both of the parents.”

Beinart apparently doesn’t know that Right wing thinkers blame the Jewish intelligentsia, largely the cultural Marxists, the Frankfurt School and Wilhelm Reich for the destruction of the Church, the eradication of family values, the obliteration of the patriarchal family and so on. Rightly or wrongly,  the white nationalists see the Jewish elite as at the core of their plight. One would expect Beinart to make a minimal effort to learn the white nationalists’ argument before he writes about the topic.

In the most supremacist and stereotypical manner, Beinart counsels his fellow Jews to fool the goyim.

“For synagogues, countering the conditions that produce neo-Nazism might involve assisting a church in a troubled area. Why? Because …white working-class Americans who attend church are less likely to experience divorce, addiction and financial distress.”

Beinart advises Jews to throw dollars at churches not because religion bonds the nation, but because it is good for the Jews. The church maintains the Goyim’s tranquillity and stops their kids from drifting toward “neo-Nazism.”

Beinart’s recipe for fixing  American society is throwing money at white goyim. I really believe that someone should explain to Beinart that American society isn’t a zoo and white people aren’t monkeys.

Beinart ends his article recycling the usual Jewish Tikun Olam  (fixing the world) mantra. “We (the Jews) answer hate by repairing the country in which we live.” This might be the time for Beinart, The Forward and their followers to stop trying to repair countries and the world. They would do better to self reflect. Probably a good place to start is by asking  why all of that animosity has happened again, just 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.

cover bit small.jpg

Gilad Atzmon’s Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: and   

The Israeli Humanitarian Enthusiasm – A Dialectical Perspective

April 30, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

The Times Of Israel reported today “Israel’s aid team to Nepal larger than any other country’s’


We are familiar with this pattern. Israel is always fast to send its medical aid and rescue teams to remote destinations as soon as the news about a natural disaster hits CNN. Yet, peculiarly, it is the same Israel that inflicts tragedies that easily match the worst natural disasters on its next door neighbours.

How can we reconcile this clear discrepancy between Israel’s humanitarian enthusiasm and the collective lethal ambitions Israeli society inflicts on its Arab neighbours? Why are the Israelis so intent on displaying a global image of ‘caring’ while behaving in a  murderous and heartless manner towards their neighbours?

Jewish identity politics can be seen as a dialectic struggle between self-hatred and self-love. Self-hatred refers to the acceptance that something is intrinsically wrong within the ‘Jewishness.’ This was the view shared by most early Zionists who agreed amongst themselves, at least, that the Jewish Diaspora identity was corrupted, capitalistic and morbid. They wrongly believed that ‘homecoming’ would save the Jews from themselves. Self-love, on the other hand, is the ability to fight one’s symptoms and convey an image of goodness.

Sending the biggest aid mission to Nepal and suffocating Nepalese survivors in Stars Of David is an indication that Israel has a lot of guilt to manage. And its remedy is an act of humanitarian virtue.

The Jewish State can be seen as a dialectic struggle between good and evil. But if Israeli existence is of a dialectic nature, it may well suggest that at least, politically and metaphysically, it cannot be resolved, it can only evolve.

This leaves the Israelis doomed to bounce between Gaza and Nepal or shall we say, evil and virtue, till they are redeemed from this impossible struggle Jews inflicted on themselves by their awkward nationalist project.

My Invitation To Participate In Israel’s VIP Big Brother TV Show

April 11, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

A few days ago, I was approached by the casting supervisor of Israeli TV Channel 2. He offered me a part in the next VIP Big Brother Show.  For those who don’t know, Big Brother is a top rated reality show that follows a group of people who live together for six weeks in a sealed house while the general public spies on them 24/7.

Though I was flattered that some Israelis see me as a ‘celebrity,’ there was no chance that I would consider the ‘opportunity.’ I have not visited Israel for 20 years and have vowed not to do so until Israel is once again Palestine. The Israeli TV representative tried to persuade me with various incentives. First, he made me aware of a financial reward that promised to be generous. I explained to him that Jazz artists are not attracted to mammon; he would have to try something else. He then argued that Big Brother would provide an excellent platform for me and my ‘politics.’ The TV program enjoys 1.5 million followers in Israel and is by far the most watched Israeli TV program. I told him that I do not see any point in talking to the people of Israel, I am much more effective in talking about Israel.  After three telephone conversations the Israeli TV guy understood that I was not voluntarily schlepping to Eretz Yisrael to be locked in a televised concentration camp for six weeks.

And yet, this peculiar episode highlighted one of the differences between Israel and the Diaspora. For the last decade I have been subjected to a relentless harassment campaign by Diaspora Jews both Zionists and the so-called ‘anti.’  Supporters of Israel and their Jewish opponents have been united in their futile efforts to silence me and wreck my career. They have failed completely. Over the same time period, Israeli media outlets have repeatedly offered me uncensored opportunities to share my thoughts with the widest possible Israel public.

Is it that Israelis are far more tolerant than our imaginary Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists allies (e.g., JVP, Mondoweiss, Max Blumenthal & Co)? The answer is clearly ‘yes.’ While Zionism is a proud celebration of Jewish particularities, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionism is a tyrannical attempt to conceal problematic Jewish cultural symptoms. The Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists are determined to block any attempt to grasp the root of Zionism in the light of Jewish culture, ideology and history.

This finding that has now been overwhelmingly documented has led me to believe that the Jewish anti Zionists are not a part of the solution, they are actually at the core of the problem. They have been paralysing the solidarity movement for years and they have managed to frustrate adequate scholarship into the root cause of Zionism and Jewish political power in the west. Jewish Anti Zionism is at best a controlled opposition apparatus.

Ten years ago at a performance by Artie Fishel & The Promised Band, my satirical musical project that mocked Jewish self-love, a Jewish progressive follower of my music approached the band after the concert. She said, “everything you say about us the Jews is spot on but why to share it with the Goyim?” At the time we were an Israeli band. None of us saw any problem in mocking ourselves or criticising ‘our people’ (I was then still a Jew).  My recent invitation to participate in the Israeli Big Brother emphasises this dichotomy between Israel and the Diaspora. You can say whatever you want as long as you stay within the ghetto walls. But don’t you ever blow the whistle, don’t you dare share your insights with the Goyim.

Watch Artie Fishel & The Promised Band:


Introduction by GA: ‘This is why I love being a Jew’ was written by Dan Sporn from Israel probably in 2009. It is continuously disseminated via Jewish mail groups and social network. This sickening Judeo-centric text reveals a weird combination of arrogance, hubris and empowerment fuelled by endless sense of victimhood. It explains pretty well the tragic manner in which Jews bring disasters on themselves



Our condition has never been better than it is now! Only the television and the media make people think that the end of the world is near. Only 65 years ago, Jews were brought to death like sheep to slaughter. NO country, NO army. Only 60 years ago, seven Arab countries declared war on little Israel, the Jewish state, just a few hours after it was established.

We were 650,000 Jews against the rest of the Arab world. No I.D.F. (Israeli Defense Forces) or Air Force. We were only a small group of stubborn people with nowhere to go.

Remember : Lebanon , Syria , Iraq , Jordan , Egypt , Libya , and Saudi Arabia, they all attacked at once. The state that the United Nations “gave” us was 65% desert. We started it from zero.

Only 41 years ago, we fought three of the strongest countries in the Middle East , and we crushed them in the Six Day War.

Over the years we fought different coalitions of Arab countries with modern armies and huge amounts of Russian-Soviet ammunition, and we still won.

Today we have a beautiful country, powerful army, strong air force, and a thriving high tech industry. Intel, Microsoft, and I.B.M. all develop their business here.

Our doctors have won important prizes in the medical development field. We turn desert into prosperous land. We sell oranges, flowers, and vegetables around the world.

We launched our own satellite! Three satellites at once! We are in good company; together with the USA (280 million residents), Russia (220 million residents), China (1.3 billion residents) and Europe (France, England and Germany – 35 million residents), we are one of the only countries in the world that have launched something into space!

Israel today is among the few powerful countries that have nuclear technology & capabilities (we will never admit it, but everyone knows).

To think that only 65 years ago we were disgraced and hopeless. We crawled out form the burning crematoriums of Europe, we won in all our wars. With little bit of nothing and we built us an empire from nothing.

Who are Khaled Mashal (leader of Hamas) or Hass an Nasrallah (leader of Hezbollah) try and frighten us? They are amusing us.

As we celebrate our independence, let’s not forget what this  is all about; we overcame everything:

  • We overcame the Greeks
  • We overcame the Romans
  • We overcame the Spanish Inquisition
  • We overcame the Russians pogroms
  • We overcame Hitler, we overcame Germany, we overcame the Holocaust
  • We overcame the armies of seven countries


Relax chevray (friends), we will overcome our current enemies.

Never mind where you look in human history. Think about it, the Jewish nation, our condition has never been better than now. So let’s lift our heads up and remember:

Never mind which country or culture tries to harm us or erase us from the world. We will still exist and persevere.

Egypt? Anyone know where the Egyptian empire disappeared to? The Greeks? Alexander Macedon? The Romans? Is anyone speaking Latin today? The third Reich? Did anyone hear news from them lately?

And look at us, the Bible nation – from slavery in Egypt, we are still here, still speaking the same language. Exactly here, exactly now.

Maybe The Arabs don’t know it yet, but we are an eternal nation. All the time that we will keep our identity, we will stay eternal.

So, sorry that we are not worrying, complaining, crying, or fearing. Business here is beseder (fine). It can definitely be much better, but it is still fine. Don’t pay attention to the nonsense in the media, they will not tell you about our festivals here in Israel or about the people that continue living, going out, meeting friends.
Yes, sometimes morale is down, so what? This is only because we are mourning the dead while they are celebrating spilled blood. And this is the reason we will win after all.

Please feel free to send the link of this page to all of your friends, Jew and gentile everywhere in the world. You are all part of our force to keep our existence.

This webpage may help some of us lift our heads up and be proud to say:


The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on  &


Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

The following is a declaration by Eugene Schulman, an American Jew living in Switzerland. It is an interestng text. I was about to post it in early July but due to events in Gaza I decided to postpone publication until now.

Schulman is brave to admit that “not only Israel, but also the Jewish people who support it, are now the enemies of peace.” He renounces any support for Israel, but also any adherence to Judaism. However, Schulman fails to see that Israel, Zionism and even Judaism are just symptoms of Jewish tribalism and ideology (i.e. Jewishness). In fact Judaism is just one Jewish religion amongst many. Moral interventionism, Bolshevism, Atheism and Free Market have been popular Jewish religions. Similarly, the Holocaust religion is by far the most popular Jewish religion these days. Jewish religion is basically a precept that facilitates self love by means of choseness.”and as an atheist who does not accept the existence of a God or gods, it would be hypocritical to observe any religious practices, even in their ‘tribal form.'”

I would argue that for Eugene to fill his independence with meaning he may as well want to consider a deep scrutiny of Jewishness and Jewish ID polotics, for being a Godless Jew is hardly a revelation. In fact, the most horrid crimes against humanity were not committed by rabbinical Jews but by godless righthous Jews whether they were Zionists, ‘anti’ or Bolsheviks.

Declaration of Independence

The United States declared its independence from the British Empire in 1776, stating that it wished freedom from domination, claiming that all men are created equal and are entitled to unalienable rights such as those of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (We now know better.)

The state of Israel declared its independence in 1948, after the end of the British Mandate over Palestine.  Although the land was to be partitioned between the indigenous Arab population and the trespassing Jews, the Zionist led territory claimed a state for themselves, excluding the Arabs.  The declaration stated that the State of israel would “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”  (We now know better.)

My own declaration:

Like most people who are born into a religion, I had always accepted the fact that I was Jewish because my family assumed the Jewish religion as handed down through their own families.  Though ours was not very religious in practice, it considered itself a “member of the tribe”.

Jewish tradition was followed in our home for the sake of my maternal grandmother, who insisted that her children adhered.  Thus, we observed the usual Jewish holidays: Pesach, Hannukkah, etc., and my eldest brother was Bar Mitzvaed.  However, when my grandmother died, all such nonsense ceased in our family, and we lived very secular lives henceforth.  Neither I, nor my other two brothers, one older and one younger, underwent the rite of Bar Mitzva.  I have never attended a seder, nor attended synagogue.

From a young age, thanks to the atheist influence of my paternal grandfather, I have always denied the existence of God.  Religion or God was never an issue or a subject of discussion in our home.  However, during the years of my youth, prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, my mother, as a member of Haddassah, essentially as a social network, did support the immigration of Jews to the Holy Land, and collected funds for the planting of trees.  So I was aware of the Zionist movement.  WWII and the discovery of the Holocaust did make me aware of my Jewish roots, and like most Jews, was appalled at what the Nazis had done to “my people”.  Innocent as I was at the time, at the age of 18, I believed that Israel would be a solution to the problem of finding homes for the survivors of the death camps, and supported the creation of Israel in Palestine as a homeland for Jews.  The notion that Palestine was already populated with an indigenous people did not escape me.  But I had no idea that the Zionist plan was to create a Jewish state and drive out the existing population (ethnic cleansing).

Between the 1948 war and the 1967 war, i.e., the calm between Israeli independence and the aggression against the Palestinians, I had thought of Israel rather benignly as a place of refuge for the people who had suffered under Nazism and those in the Diaspora who wanted to find a home among their own.  The 1967 war, as was presented to the world, gave us in the West the idea that Jews could now be safe among their own, and henceforth would be able to protect themselves.  This, of course, is just what the Zionists wanted the world to believe.  But a reading of history since has shown that this is not the case.  We now know that the Zionist intention, then and now, was to expand its borders and to subsume all of Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan and perhaps beyond.  Books have shown that, despite their claim of victimhood, Israel has become an aggressor state, and claims hegemony over all the Middle East.  In so becoming, Israel has become for Muslims what Nazi Germany was for the Jews, not to speak of the millions of others who suffered equally.  Although they were not the only people who suffered, the Holocaust has been co-opted  by the Jews who use it as a weapon against all who would claim that Israel and Judaism are the cause of much trouble in the world.

I am one of those who believe that, not only Israel, but also the Jewish people who support it, are now the enemies of peace.  Thus, I hereby renounce any support for Israel, but also any adherence to Judaism.  Judaism is a religion, and as an atheist who does not accept the existence of a God or gods, it would be hypocritical to observe any religious practices, even in their “tribal form.”

Via this declaration of independence, I now feel free to criticize all who I believe are enemies of freedom and justice, whether political or religious entities, sans remorse!

Eugene Schulman


DateFriday, October 26, 2012 at 10:10AM

Just as we were learning about ‘anti’ Zionist Mondoweiss’ decision to revise its comment policy to exclude discussion of the true nature of the Jewish State, the openly pro Zionist Haaretz paper published a news item about the Israeli poet, singer songwriter Zeev Tene.
Tene’s new song is called ‘Jew-Ish’ and as you may guess, is actually very critical of the Jew, Jewishness, The Jewish State and Jewish Identity in general. On the pages of Haaretz, an Israeli paper, Tene tells the truth that Mondoweiss and other AZZ (Anti Zionists Zionists) are determined to suppress.
Is it a coincidence that our leading ‘pro’-Palestinian Jews are so determined to stifle any critical discourse to do with the Jewish State and Jewish identity?
Not at all. Philip Weiss, the founder of the ‘progressive’ Jewish website admitted to me in an interview that Jewish-self interests are at the centre of his activism.

“I believe all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews — like myself for instance — are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism,” said Weiss.

Unlike Philip Weiss, Zeev Tene, is a proud self-hater. He calls a spade a spade, he says what he means and he means what he says.
Watch and read Zeev Tene new poem.

Jew ish! by Zeev Tene
How do you live with it
How do you remain indifferent
You lock an entire nation behind a fence
Just because it wants from you to be free
You stand and sing about being free
Yet, you forgets what humanity is
You forget that only yesterday you were the Other
You forget that just yesterday it was you there behind the fence
Jew ish!
How do you live with it
How do you remain indifferent
You who were pushed down
The scent of your burnt flesh is still in the air
You’ve seen how in split second
A man can become a beast
Jew ish! Wake up!
It’s only yourself whom you lock behind the fence
Jew ish! Wake up!
It’s only yourself whom you lock behind a fence
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The BDS Cultural Boycott and Integrity

DateFriday, June 1, 2012 at 7:26AM AuthorGilad Atzmon

By Sarah Gillespie

If we are ‘humanists’ we cannot be lured into suppressing or vandalizing art or ideas.

Last week I went to see an excellent play at the National Theatre called The Collaborators by John Hodge.
The play explored Josef Stalin’s unlikely admiration for dissident playwright Mikhail Bulgakov and the complex bond between art and ‘the State’. The play was a reminder that historically, even when culture has been puppeteered by an authority, unapproved and unintended meanings have a way of leaking out. Had the horror of Stalin’s Holodomor been contemporaneous today, we may well have been called upon to boycott the works of Bulgakov. This would do a great disservice, not only to the cannon of great literature, but also to the counter-revolutionary spirit evoked by Bulgakov’s work. I don’t claim that all art originating from criminal or repressive states, is loaded with subversive messages, but that art has the capacity to transcend the binary world of ‘placard politics’ (‘for’ this or ‘against’ that) and deliver the transforming might of pathos, spirit, sadness and beauty.
Reflecting on this reinforced my reluctant opposition to the cultural and academic boycott of Israel and, in particular to the call by the BDS to sabotage or ban any mode of expression delivered by state-enforced Israeli artists, musicians and thinkers. While the motives of many activists speaking out against Israeli artists and intellectuals are well intended and heart-felt, any action that seeks to abolish freedom of expression or thought is not winning any prizes for tolerance.
Jews had their books burnt by Nazis & Israelis continue this dubious tradition by banning writer Gunter Grass, composer Daniel Barenboim and academic Norman Finkelstein. Surely, if we are ‘humanists’ we cannot be lured into suppressing or vandalizing art or ideas. If we do, we enter the supremacist domain of those we claim to oppose.
Furthermore, while the BDS sanctioning of goods is a logical, pragmatic tactic that I whole-heartedly support, I fail to understand the rationality of banning certain Zionist artists and not others.
Last weekend Gilad Atzmon’s devoted nemesis, Tony Greenstein, took it upon himself to publish an inordinately long piece about some comments I wrote on this issue on the Facebook page of Ben White, an activist and writer who argues that Israel is essentially identical to South African Apartheid. I don’t agree with White’s prognosis. In the thread I wrote the following:-

(Culturally) ‘boycotting a nation state’ is premised on the notion that the country functions autonomously & can be ideologically quarantined. I’m not an expert on South African politics, but I certainly don’t recall the Apartheid regime enjoying the most powerful lobby group in the United States, I don’t recall the Apartheid Friends of Labor Org in the UK – nor do I recall British lawyers abandoning Universal Jurisdiction to allow SA leaders to travel freely. In short, Israel is unique in that it is maintained by Zionists across the globe on the Left & the Right. Boycotting academics & artists who happen to be born within the perimeters of Israeli sovereignty is futile. Who cares if some art-house Israeli movie gets refused from European film festivals when you’ve got Steven Spielberg’s ‘Munich’ grossing $130,358,911 worldwide?

Predictably, Ben White did not address my questions. Nor did Tony Greenstein when he recycled my words, along with an impressive gallery of photos lifted from my personal Facebook account, on his amusingly foul-mouthed blog.
Supporters of the cultural boycott state that they don’t boycott individual Israelis if those individuals are anti-Zionist (like academic Shlomo Sands). This is very kind of them. However, if it is a person’s political persuasion, not the arbitrary lottery of their Nationality, that determines whether they are spared prohibition, why is it only Israeli-born Zionists get banned? Why not picket the lectures of Zionist ‘University of London’ professor David Hirsh?
Why interrupt a work of a genius like William Shakespeare (not commonly known to have been a massive Netanyahu supporter) while in cinemas across London, Sasha Baron Cohen’s Zionist propaganda film, The Dictator is delivered on a loop? I really don’t get it.
Last year Wikileeks revealed that the Arab League boycotted Steven Spielberg, not for beaming Islamphobic global blockbusters like Munich onto our screens, but for donating $1 million to Israel during their 2006 war with Lebanon. This is coherent. Indeed, too many Lefties in the West refuel their self-love by waving placards without ever asking themselves why.
Given the war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan committed by my democratically elected government in the UK, shouldn’t Tony Greenstein et al also boycott British Artists who receive money from the Arts Counsel of Britain? Add to this the recent revelation that BDS hero Omar Barghouti is a student in Tel Aviv University, the very institution he encourages us to ban, and the ‘movement’ begins to resemble a tangled web of hypocrisy and redundant gestures.
Barghouti’s attendance at TA University doesn’t exactly make Israel resemble the Apartheid State he tells us it is. The Apartheid 1959 ‘Extension of University Education Act’ bared non-whites from entering white Universities. This has not happened to Barghouti. His presence there reinforces TA Universities’ reputation as a tolerant and multicultural institution.
Interfering with freedom of thought and expression, academic exchange and artistic liberty is a sensitive Issue. Tolerance and pluralism are core and precious values within western discourse. We should boycott Israeli products, not art, spirit and ideas. Recently I read an article from Ben white in which he admits that the ”boycott is a strategy not a principle’.
This is exactly my problem with the BDS Cultural and academic boycott. It is not principled, & it lacks integrity. By refusing to have the argument you have lost the argument.

The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

They Love Themselves Loving Themselves

Gilad Atzmon

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012

In this this debate two rabid Zionist enthusiasts (Jeremy Ben Ami and Alan Dershowitz) who openly support the existence of the ‘Jews only State’, pretend to disagree on some minor issues.

Interestingly enough, neither Ben Ami nor Dershowitz happen to be concerned with ethical or moral issues. They are largely interested in the image of Israel and its impact on American Jews.

I would really like to know how many American Jews support Israel becoming a ‘State of its citizens’. How many American Jews support the Palestinian right of return*? Is there any Jewish progressive organisation committed to universal ethical thinking?

* As far as I am aware even the IJAN (international ‘Jews only’ Anti-zionist network) seems to adhere to the concept of the Right of Return, yet fails to specify whether it supports the return of the Palestinians to their land, homes, villages and cities. Is it also possible that like left Zionists, IJAN also supports the return of Palestinian refugees to the future Palestinian State?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Zionist Self Love. How To Combat Anti-Semite Slurs, Part One

by Richard Morris

Sunday, May 6th, 2012 I intend to write a series of articles examining the sometimes profound and intricate thought processes of Zionists and supporters of Israel that lead them to defend the indefensible; ordinary men and women, writers, journalists, novelists, historians, the widest spectrum I can cope with.
Searching for an opening statement I came across Jonathan Freedland in The Jewish Chronicle commenting on Peter Beinhart who has written a book called The Crisis Of Zionism.
Mr Beinhart is a Zionist, an advocate for Israel well known on the AIPAC lecture circuit.

His children go to Jewish schools, call him Abba, the Hebrew word for father. He goes regularly to an Orthodox shul, keeps an Israeli flag in his room.

Freedland appears to find it astonishing that Beinhart argues that the leadership of American Jewry is making a fateful mistake in its indulgence of Israel’s forty five years of occupation, a situation that makes impossible Israel’s station as both a Jewish and democratic state.

Freedland writes about Beinhart:

He is a concerned Jew raising a truly profound question: can Jews, powerless for so long, now exercise power and stay true to their highest ethical ideals? Pesach is all about questions and Beinart has asked the most important one of our age. In my book, that makes him one of our people’s wise sons

One should note here a good example of Zionist Self Love. “the most important question of our age”
A typical self love statement and an ignoring of the manifold problems across the world and more pertinently of The Other, in the Israeli case the invisible Palestinians.

“Look at us we are important and clever. We are Europeans, love Beethoven and Mozart even though they weren’t Jewish. Help us bomb Iran and all will be well”

Aren’t we constantly being urged by Zionists to leave them alone and concentrate on Sri Lanka or China?

Where has Beinhart been for so many years ?

Does he think that no-one else has noticed the despicable actions of his countrymen and women.

Has he not read Peter Novick’s The Holocaust and Collective Memory published in 1999. Sacred Landscape by Meron Benevenisti published in 2000 or Ilan Pappes’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine published in 2006 to name but three books out of hundreds?

I confess I have problems with Jonathan Freedland. I think he is Janus faced. It is understandable up to a point.

Anyone who writes for the Guardian and The (rabid) Jewish Chronicle is bound to have the Janus problem. Witness the sinister and smug Nick Cohen and compare his Observer articles and his Jewish Chronicle ones. But where was Freedland when Jenny Tonge was sacked by Nick Clegg and why is it okay for a practising Jew to say what Beinhart did but not a non-Jew ?

Let’s remind you of the words that caused her sacking by the supine Clegg.

Israel is acting against international law ,the Geneva Convention and Human Rights….Beware Israel.
It is not going to be there for ever in its present form.

We also have no record of the self professed liberal Freedland standing up for free speech for his colleague Deborah Orr whose words shouldn’t disturb any sane thinker on the subject of Chosen People. Miss Orr allowed herself to be intimidated and hustled, to their shame by the Guardian to declare that her words were “badly chosen and poorly used”.

Anyone who follows the history of Israel and Palestine will recognise that there is nothing startling about an acceptance of the shortcomings of Israel. Freedland knows as well as any that the illegal and atrocious acts of the Israelis are not newly minted. Jews have claimed in the past that Judaism is an ethics of law and justice. We who study the history know that whatever the ramifications and arguments of pre -1967, that Yeshayahou Leibowitz is correct in his assessment:

From 1967 on, the Israelis are responsible for all that has followed and thus for our impossible situation as occupiers.

Martin Buber the theologian and philosopher wrote “there will obviously be no legitimacy for the Hebrew state unless it makes itself accepted by all its neighbours”.

The settlers who claim biblical authority for their gross rape of Palestinian lands and water do not bother to quote Deuteronomy when challenged on their usurpations:

If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law (concerning the lands of Canaan)…so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and to bring you to nought and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

The frustration I feel with Mr Freedland is that he understands all this and the expected attacks from the neo-fascist Zionists though of course he doesn’t call them that.

And sadly once again he slithers into Jewish Chronicle treacly prose, perhaps frightened he won’t get any more commissions.

The book is written entirely from within and not without the Jewish springs from deep concern for us, the Jewish people

Yet again we are confronted with Self Love and self promotion. Let me ask Mr Freedland one more time. Are you British first and foremost ? Why evoke your Jewishness again and again as and when it suits you to do so?

Some Jewish writers have asked why so many Jews like Freud, Einstein, Barenboim, Jonathan Miller and the Jewish man in the street do not feel the need to indentify themselves as Jews, members of a closed milieu, wanting to live in a self imposed ghetto feeding off the related memories of the shtetls of Easten Europe.
Freedland recently wrote that “As a Jew” he couldn’t support Ken Livingstone for Mayor because he had referred to London Jews as all being rich. What on earth is offensive about that ?

Who cares if it’s true or not ? Who cares if Freedland is Jewish?

We Londoners care about fares and child care not Freedland’s whining special pleading on Jewishness. Reading the Jewish Chronicle is like one long wail of persecution by Londoners and others who stalk the Jews through the streets of our cities and towns and fail to recognise the iniquities of The Palestinians who dare to fight for their land.

All the Aaronovitches, Jacobsens, Aldermans, Finklesteins, Berkoffs and Lipmans ignore the people of Palestine. The self love of the Zionists and camp followers leads them into the denial of decency and truth.

It was a Jew who wrote the seminal song about race, Strange Fruit.
When asked why he wrote it Abe Meeropol said:

I wrote it because I hated lynching and I hate injustice and I hate the people who perpetuate it.

I will be continuing Zionist Self Love shortly

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Where the ‘Self’ Ends and the ‘West’ Begins

By Gilad Atzmon

When we were young there was hope in the air. There was good reason to look ahead. Some of us enrolled at university, but we also knew that if life did not shine on us, there were plenty of factories that offered enough jobs to those who were willing to toil. Yet it seems our children are not so lucky. Not much is awaiting them. The Western economy is on the brink of collapse.
When we were young, there were two ideologies around. In a cold manner, they bitterly chewing away at each other. One ideology maintained that equality and justice were the means towards liberation, whilst the other contended that celebrating one’s symptoms was actually the true meaning of human liberty. But it seems that these two ideologies have had very little impact on our life. In practice, we were all celebrating our symptoms – we were buying, selling, eating and drinking, but we somehow also enjoyed believing that ‘equality was a good thing’. Eventually these grand ideologies faded away and, not only do we not have ideologies anymore, we are not even capable of thinking ideologically.
In the post ideological era, which we now inhabit, we kill millions in the name of ‘liberation’, we rain down depleted uranium shells on crowded cities whilst promising to export ‘liberal democracy,’ and we export Western ‘justice’ in Coca Cola cans.

When we were young, we reserved some respect for our political system. We somehow accepted that liberal democracy reflected our true values and beliefs. Fundamentally, we believed that it was a well-meaning idea and the best of all options. Hence we believed that at least theoretically, our democratically elected representatives were largely a true reflection of our desires.

We were not stupid but we were somewhat naïve. Being the sons and daughters of the Enlightenment, we were submerged in self-love. We were rich and spoiled. Yet, clearly, we failed to notice that our most elementary freedoms were being gradually diminished until the ‘freedom to consume’ was the only freedom left. We were basically free to buy and spend, to borrow and then to spend again and, without realising it, we were being reduced to a nation of shoppers with the political system existing solely to facilitate consumption, on a constantly growing grand scale.

When we were young, we read about liberation, and political struggles. We learned about heroic people who stood up against evil by fighting tyrants, Tsars, capitalists, communists, fascists and racists. Yet why is it so difficult now for us to identify precisely who is to be blame for the current global crisis, to identify who is to take responsibility for the collapse of our free markets and our own sense of values, ethics and justice? Is it a single person that we should blame? Is it Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Tony Blair or Milton Friedman? Is it a party or rather is it an ideology? Is it the banks, Alan Greenspan or Goldman Sachs? Is it Wall Street or the City of London? Is it America? Or is it ‘just us,’ humanity as a whole, that we should blame?

It is reasonable to argue that the gigantic hole in global finance commonly known as the credit crunch is actually a gigantic amplification of the hole in each of our pockets. The greedy capitalist system known as ‘banking’ and ‘global expansionist markets’ can be understood as a vast manifestation of our own personal greed, as explored through relentless consumption. Hard capitalism is a ‘continuum state’ of greed between the personal and the entire system.

Liberal democracy is commonly realised as a natural political extension of individual liberties. It is only natural then, that some of the worse aspects of our society and political system are actually deeply rooted in each and every one of us. The relentless appetite that we find at the heart of the capitalist system is a multiplied mirror image of our own bottomless inclination towards consumption.

Any profound criticism of the liberal system at this stage then, should entail some harsh self-criticism. Each and every one of us is an autonomous and ‘self-sufficient credit crunch.’ Just like the banks, we have also been spending money we did not have. And it seems our societies and ourselves are now clearly subjected to a similar malaise. We have been celebrating our symptoms collectively and blindly for too long.

We sometime envy the Arabs and their Spring. They have grasped who their enemy is (Western puppets rulers) and what their salvation is (Islam). Tragically, we understand that we are spiraling down into an inevitable long and dark winter. We know that politics and ideologies have failed us. We accept that we are dwelling in a post-political and post-ideological era, and yet we fail to understand what this may entail. The world, as we know it, is changing rapidly. Our so-called ‘liberties’ have turned against us and we dread the meaning of it all.

And yet we do not posses a means of understanding the condition we are subject to, simply because such conditions are merely an amplification of ourselves and our most precious beliefs. We fail to admit or decide where the ‘self’ ends and the ‘West’ begins. We do not know where London’s AL Tahrir square is. We cannot decide whether we really want to be liberated and we do not seem capable of even identifying who the enemy is.

The Western subject, as well as Western society, is submerged in self-love. Somehow we cannot understand how it is that a system that was created to explore our human liberties, can fail.

I suggest that a partial remedy for our malaise might be acceptance of a certain level of uncanniness, an acceptance that reason has its limits, and that ‘being in the world’ may be slightly mysterious after all. However, it seems as if it may take a while before we are brave enough to admit to ourselves that this is indeed the case.

The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics
The book can be ordered on or

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Kosher Face- A Glimpse Into Self Love

DateSaturday, April 14, 2012 at 11:16PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

The following was copied from youtube:

“Kosher Face” is Sheer’s send-up of Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face”… a tribute to the members of the tribe of Abraham… a tongue-in-cheek exploration of the Jewish experience, populated by a host of Jewish celebrities of today… and the past. Shalom.

The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Theater at the UN Security Council

The Neo “Marxist-Leninist” creazy Arab find it:

The Russian and Chinese governments veto is an opportunity for the US at the UN “to pose as a champion of the Syrian people”. He wrote in English Al-akhbar.
Russia can’t be a new super power without being “Marxist-Leninist”, the veto has nothing to do with oil and gas, has nothing to do with dismantling the Russian union, after dismantling the USSR.

The Lebanese-American professor of political shit at California State believe that the second double veto has nothing to do with the struggle with and on Syria, and new world order, Russia “can easily sell the Syrian regime in a negotiated deal with the West”. Russia and China ….. “May need in the future to repress and kill their own people, and they don’t want to set a precedent for an outside intervention.” Thus said the crazy Arab, following the steps US propaganda about, Saddam, Kaddafi, and now Bashar is killing his own people.

Posing, like Susan rice, as a “champion of the Syrian people” the creazy arab claimed that The Syrian people are left out of the discussion. They have been used by the propaganda of both sides. The Syrian regime is now increasingly a pawn in a regional and international game and is increasingly subservient to the agenda of its regional and international allies, just as the Syrian National Council is hostage to its regional and international alliances. A spontaneous and popular uprising has been (forcibly) transferred into a regional and international confrontation”

Few days ago, Ibrahim Al-Amin, the chief editor of Lebanon’s Al-akhbar wrote about the  symptoms of isolation In lefty liberal. I wonder if he was addressing his comrades. So far Amin’s article is not translated, not published in the English Akbar. This is my translation (forgive my english)

It seems that who consider himself a LEFTIST, as I do, has painted for himself a typical image. A large part of those I meant in my article last «how to be a leftist liberal» looked nervous. I thought their the general interests are much larger than this discussion, that they’re in front of the agenda on how to interact with the existing Arabic revolutions, and share them. But it seems, again, they remain where they are, on the sidelines of the scene. At the best they pose observers. Express sympathy or prejudice or anything, but they think they have moral superior qualities from fantastic source, making them dizzy, they think for a moment they are professors in giving tags to this or that people or groups alike.

Unfortunate, refuse to admit that they are from the past, that the real vanguard people and realistic today are not from their environment, not their offsets, not resembling something of their slogans, not including even attraction even to a teenager. stiffness infects their scare frameworks, infertility affects what is left in their minds, the surprising game is the closest to their minds. Performing the role of liberal Pro-all the rights of the individual….

In Leninist organization years, the community controlled individuals. The solubility in the community was a prerequisite for membership. It was not a great mix, individual values and humanitarian ideas and sensitivities that were driving the individual to deny himself, even the limits of scratch, to die so others live. But their liberal offsets, did not know the story but its margins, impatient with teamwork; because it deprives the individual properties, prevents the differentiation, and the right to exit the row without the permission of the Leader. But he, himself, the wretched left-wing liberal lacks the idea of teamwork. The idea that there is an Emir, who thinks, decides, and lead, and the rest are just obedient soldiers. But the image blank of anything, make them accept the replacement of general framework, with small frames to smaller groups, gathering what is less than the number of fingers on one hand, or two if brilliant.

They are protesting the general laws which manage the family, school, tribe, caste, region, State, nation and world. None of them can claim possessing a uniting idea.

For decades they live in the reaction zone. All the anger that accommodate them, because of the tragedies that face individuals or peoples, disappear on late evening, behind a Cup with custom music for daydream.

And on the morning they lineup like screws in large machine doing anything on the pretext of searching to live. They never dared to follow the steps of real freedom fighters who carried sincere position, abandoned places, habits, work, and privileges, because they are convinced that none addresses their daily concerns, who never used violence for violence, like extremists all over the world now, on behalf of the religions or without, feeling useless life, turning themselves into tools to defeat themselves, and to be used by their enemy with the illusion that they are the real actors.

What they reject, is not typical conventional image people should follow, but what they really reject is to recognize that their quest to be different ended up in disagreeing with themselves only. They don’t know they look like all their opponents, they are a mirror image of anarchists, who pay little attention to anything around them other than their right to express themselves. They are a mirror image of exploitative, who never cared for the crying poor, and resorts to increase profit, by any means available to them.

Then they in the final analysis, a minority lacking much true knowledge, as if they did not know schools, and curricula, even the scene where they live. All they know is that they are prisoners of hideous symptoms……

A Liberal leftist is a real ill man. He refuses to accept the diagnosis, and going voluntarily to get help. And If satisfied or forced, God knew if is a proficient treatment!
Theater at the UN Security Council
It was quite a show at the UN Security Council this weekend. Susan Rice of the US could not believe that the veto was used in that august body. How could the veto be used to abort the will of the international community? Her country has sixty vetoes in support of Israeli war crimes.

The US never misses an opportunity to feign outrage even at events in which the US has very little credibility. Rice’s indignation reminded one of another Ms. Rice in US foreign policy: it was Condoleezza Rice who clearly and categorically (and she admits that proudly in her “No Higher Honor” book) rejected and postponed any agreement on a cease-fire during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. She even talked about her indignation at the French foreign minister who dared to propose an immediate end to killing in Lebanon. The US now has an opportunity at the UN to pose as a champion of the Syrian people: an uprising in Syria or in Iran is all that the US can afford, because the rest of Middle East tyrannies are nothing but US puppets.

The Russian and Chinese governments are being hailed as the new rivals to the US on the world stage. Syrian regime propaganda TV stations are hailing the rise of Russia as the new super power. They even celebrate the return of the Cold War. The Syrian regime perhaps expects the Neo-Soviet power to threaten the US with nuclear annihilation on behalf of the Syrian friend. Of course, the Russian and Chinese vetoes had nothing to do with the Syrian people or their welfare. Russia and China simply learned from the case of the UN Security Council resolution on Libya: those two countries may need in the future to repress and kill their own people, and they don’t want to set a precedent for an outside intervention.

Russian statements on Syria lack any sentimentality or even friendliness towards the Assad regime. Russia has its own calculations and the Syrian regime has much less to offer to the Russian government than Western governments do. Just as Russia defied the American will at the UN, it can easily sell the Syrian regime in a negotiated deal with the West. But the Syrian regime lives in another era.

The Security Council watched a presentation by Hamad bin Jasim of Qatar. This highly unpopular figure (who is associated in Arab public minds with Qatari normalization with Israel and with a statement to the effect that Arab governments can’t help the Palestinians and that Arabs can only offer to “beg” the US to restrain Israel a bit) became the accepted leader of all the Arabs. When US government officials speak about what “Arabs want”, they are referring to this oil (and gas) sheikh. And just as Amr Mousa was a puppet for the Mubarak regime and the GCC in the Arab League, Nabil Arabi became an obedient servant of Qatar (House of Saud is distracted with succession matters and illnesses of senior princes).

The Syrian ambassador was also allowed to make a presentation (Syria is allowed to speak at the UN, but not at the Arab League, from which it has been suspended). He likes to appear as a man of literature (but he seriously fumbled the name of the German poet, Goethe, and dared to cite the poems of Nizar Qabbani, who was banned from Syria for years).

The Syrian ambassador delivered his talk without any passion: he—sticking to the policies of his government—criticized GCC countries vaguely and without naming names.

The Syrian people are left out of the discussion. They have been used by the propaganda of both sides. The Syrian regime is now increasingly a pawn in a regional and international game and is increasingly subservient to the agenda of its regional and international allies, just as the Syrian National Council is hostage to its regional and international alliances. A spontaneous and popular uprising has been (forcibly) transferred into a regional and international confrontation.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Jewish student: ‘Why I stopped defending Israel?’

Jessie Lieberfeld is 11 grade student at Winchester Thurston School, a private coeducational school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylania. The school has been named a national leader among college preparatory independent schools for innovative teaching, gifted and talented education and distinctive campus setting.

Two WT juniors, Jessie Lieberfeld and Erika Drain, tied for the first place at Carnegie Mellon University’s Martin Luther King Day Writing Awards on January 16, 2012.

The title of Jessie Lieberfeld’s essay was Fighting a Forbidden Battle: How I Stopped Covering Up for a Hidden Wrong.

“I once belonged to a wonderful religion. I belonged to a religion that allows those of us who believe in it to feel that we are the greatest people in the world—and feel sorry for ourselves at the same time. Once, I thought that I truly belonged in this world of security, self-pity, self-proclaimed intelligence, and perfect moral aesthetic. I thought myself to be somewhat privileged early on. It was soon revealed to me, however, that my fellow believers and I were not part of anything so flattering,” wrote Jessie Lieberfeld.

I was forever reminded how intelligent my family was, how important it was to remember where we had come from, and to be proud of all the suffering our people had overcome in order to finally achieve their dream in the perfect society of Israel,”wrote Jessie.

This last mandatory belief was one which I never fully understood, but I always kept the doubts I had about Israel’s spotless reputation to the back of my mind. “Our people” were fighting a war, one I did not fully comprehend, but I naturally assumed that it must be justified. We would never be so amoral as to fight an unjust war. Yet as I came to learn more about our so-called “conflict” with the Palestinians, I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. “Genocide” almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms. Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.” It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought. “We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right,” says Jessie.

We need to defend our race.” Where had I heard that before? Wasn’t it the same excuse our own country had used to justify its abuses of African-Americans sixty years ago? In that moment, I realized how similar the two struggles were—like the white radicals of that era, we controlled the lives of another people whom we abused daily, and no one could speak out against us. It was too politically incorrect to do so. We had suffered too much, endured too many hardships, and overcome too many losses to be criticized. I realized then that I was in no way part of a “conflict”—the term “Israeli/Palestinian Conflict” was no more accurate than calling the Civil Rights Movement the “Caucasian/ African-American Conflict.” In both cases, the expression was a blatant euphemism: it gave the impression that this was a dispute among equals and that both held an equal share of the blame. However, in both, there was clearly an oppressor and an oppressed, and I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion,” wrote Jessie.

It was different not being the ideal nice Jewish boy. The difference was subtle, yet by no means unaffecting. To hold unchallengeable beliefs, and to contrive illusions of superiority to avoid having to face simple everyday truths. That illusion was nice while it lasted, but I decided to pass it up. I have never been happier,” concludes Jessie Lieberfeld.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Wondering Jesse by Gilad Atzmon

This week, Jesse Lieberfeld an11th-grade American Jewish teenager won the Dietrich College’s 2012 Martin Luther King, Jr. Writing Awards for composing a beautiful piece about his own moral awakening and journey away from Judaism.

“I once belonged to a wonderful religion. I belonged to a religion that allows those of us who believe in it to feel that we are the greatest people in the world—and feel sorry for ourselves at the same time,” says young Jesse. However, it seems that it didn’t take too long before Jesse found out for himself that what he was part of was neither flattering or glorious.
To read Jesse prose click here

Jewish tribal cultural indoctrination is a full-on, comprehensive process. “Although I was fortunate enough to have parents who did not try to force me into any one set of beliefs, being Jewish was in no way possible to escape growing up”, says Jesse. “It was constantly reinforced at every holiday, every service, and every encounter with the rest of my relatives.”
Inherent to the culture and its maintenance is self-love. “I was forever reminded how intelligent my family was, how important it was to remember where we had come from, and to be proud of all the suffering our people had overcome in order to finally achieve their dream in the perfect society of Israel.”
Jewish ideological and cultural ‘programming’ is rather sophisticated. It is a unique dynamic pattern practiced in both a collective and an individual way. But those who carry the message aren’t themselves fully aware of their role within the tribal ideology they aim to maintain.
Of course Jews hold many different, and even contradictory, political beliefs. But however diverse their views may be somehow, those who are identified as Jews politically always unite against any attempt to criticise the cultural and ideological foundation of their tribal bond. Young Jesse is clearly aware of this. On the surface, it was the crimes against the Palestinians that provoked his ethical sense. “I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. ‘Genocide’ almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms.”
One of the most sophisticated tribal aspects of Jewish culture maintenance is the gradual manner in which criticism is silenced. “Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.” This common Hasbara argument on the surface sounds reasonable but it ignores the fact that in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there is a clear distinction between the aggressor and the victim. The Israelis are the ethnic cleansers and the occupiers. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are the expelled, the racially discriminated, the abused, deprived, locked behind walls and barbed wire in open air jails and, in some cases, even starved.
But Jesse seems to be made of the stuff of honesty. Unlike some of the Jewish leftists who presents a pseudo-moral argument only to gain credibility so that he/she can then vet the discourse, young Jesse presses on, stripping himself of any trace of choseness and exceptionalism. “It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought. “We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right.”
This “We need to defend our race,” is a common excuse Jewish activists use amongst themselves. Although Jews do not form a race, Jewish identity politics is still overtly racist. In fact, any form of Jewish secular identity politics is racially driven and fuelled with racial exclusivity. This applies not only to pro Israeli Jews but unfortunately also to Jews-only ‘anti’ Zionist groups.
I guess it is obvious where Jesse is heading. He clearly sees an ideological continuum between the civil right movement in America and the Palestinian liberation struggle. In both struggles, there is clearly a racially driven oppressor and a victim collective – and Jesse draws the necessary conclusion, “I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion.”
Jesse has obviously identified the Jewish politics and culture of which he was a part, as a form of ‘racial supremacy.’ He never mentions Zionism, in fact, the word Zionism is not mentioned once in his sincere award-winning post. He simply speaks about his Jewish upbringing, the culture and the ideology.
Young Jesse has already grasped that an appeal to his Jewish friends is not going to lead anywhere. He writes, “I decided to make one last appeal to my religion…The next time I attended a service, there was an open question-and-answer session about any point of our religion…When I was finally given the chance to ask a question, I asked, ‘I want to support Israel. But how can I when it lets its army commit so many killings?’ I was met with a few angry glares from some of the older men, but the rabbi answered me. “It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?’ he said. ‘But there’s nothing we can do. It’s just a fact of life.’ I knew, of course, that the war was no simple matter and that we did not by any means commit murder for its own sake, but to portray our thousands of killings as a ‘fact of life’ was simply too much for me to accept.”
It seems that Jesse has the courage to redeem his soul. “I thanked him (the Rabbi) and walked out shortly afterward. I never went back…. If nothing else, I could at least try to free myself from the burden of being saddled with a belief I could not hold with a clear conscience.…I did not intend to go on being one of the Self-Chosen People, identifying myself as part of a group to which I did not belong.”
Surprisingly, Jesse wasn’t compelled to apologise for telling truth. He didn’t have to retract for telling things as they are. In fact he won the most prestigious humanist award for his essay. But I’m wondering how long will it take before ADL’s Abe Foxman and infamous Ethnic-cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz launch a campaign to destroy the awarding college.

Being a person who oscillates continuously between being an ‘ex-Jew’ and a ‘proud self hating Jew’, I embrace young Jesse and hold him close to my heart. My dear young twin brother, journeying from choseness is a life-struggle. From time to time you may feel lonely but you are never alone. Humanity and humanism are there at your side – for all time.

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Zionist’s global interests or

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Self-Loving Shlomo..

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: Progressive Choseness

Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 3:12PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation PodcastsSome Palestinian solidarity campaigners are excited this morning about Rabbi Eric Yoffie’s pearls of wisdom. The outgoing President of the Union for Reform Judaism, wrote in a recent blog post for the Jerusalem Post:

“I care about humankind, but I love my own group a bit more. I am more comfortable with them. I care more about them, just as I care more about my family than other families.”

People who understand the full extent of Jewish tribalism shouldn’t be taken by surprise. Rabbi Yoffie is genuine and coherent. Consequently, his support of The Two State solution is consistent with his Jewish belief system.

“Without a two-state solution.” Says Rabbi Yoffie, “Israel will not longer be a state for my group; it will be a bi-national state without a clear Jewish identity. That is not the kind of place where I, or most Israeli Jews, will want to live.”

As a supporter of the One State Solution I myself explored this exact issue at the Stuttgart One Democratic State Conference last year.

Needless to say, that the five German ‘progressive’ Jews who attended the conference insisted on my removal from the Conference’s protocol.

I believe that truth must be said – there is a clear unfortunate discrepancy between Jewish Ideology and the One State Solution. This discrepancy must be addressed rather than be swept under the carpet.
Sadly enough, Judeo centrism and racial orientation is inherent to any form of Jewish political setting. It isn’t just the Zionists, Israelis and the odd Rabbi who wants to live in a mono-cultural ghetto.
The Jewish Left follows exactly the same problematic mantra. J-BIG, for instance, is a UK ‘Jews only’ Israeli boycott campaign. For some reason they operate as a Judeo-centric segregated group apart from the general BDS movement. The International Jewish Anti Zionist Network (IJAN) would also take into their ranks activists who are ethnically and racially qualified. Like Rabbi Yoffie they claim to care about humankind, but somehow, they probably ‘love their own group a bit more.’ They are just slightly ‘more comfortable with them’.

A few months ago, the progressive blogger Philip Weiss wrote to me: “I believe that all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews — like myself for instance – are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism. A theory of political life based on altruism or concern for victims purely is doomed to fail.

Philip Weiss and Rabbi Yoffie must agree then. Rabbi Yoffie cares more about his people just as he ‘cares more about his family than other families’, Weiss seems to be slightly more succinct, he actually explores the true meaning of Jewish non-altruistic political existence.

So here we are, many Jews believe in Zionism, a few Jews believe that Zionism is actually ‘bad for the Jews’ (as opposed to bad for humanity or the Palestinians). But all Jews who identify themselves politically as Jews act out of ‘Jewish self interests. They all prefer to operate in ‘Jews only cells’ I guess that this is the true practical meaning of ‘choseness’.

As it stands, universalism, humanism and altruism are still foreign to Jewish culture and Jewish political thinking. Those amongst us who dream of peace in the Middle East better address this crucial issue and find an adequate solution. As far as I can tell, this is a grave problem. Also, as long as progressive Jews keep operating in ‘Jews only’ political cells, they won’t be part of a solution but just another aspect of the problem.

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book is available on or

In case you missed it:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Richard Falk and ‘Jewish self-hatred’

Many people don’t know that when it comse to hatred – the Zionist propagandists have elephant’s memory. The latest example of such species I recently found in Philologos at Jewish daily Forward (Agust 10, 2011). Philologos is still chasing his fellow Jew Dr. Richard Falk for later’s publishing a cartoon showing a dog wearing ‘Star of Zion’ leading Uncle Sam to war on Libya.

Dr. Falk had removed the cartoon from his website immediately once he smelled the skunk and even posted an apology to his tribe. However, Philologos is not happy with all that. He writes that “a self-hating Jew” label doesn’t describe Dr. Falk fully, who is in the bad habit of issuing pro-Palestinian UN human rights reports. Philologos suggests that Dr. Falk should be called “Jüdischer selbsthass” or “Jewish self-hatred”. This term was coined and proposed by Jewish German writer Anton Kuh to expand Theodor Herzl’s definition of non-Jewish anti-Semites. In fact, if someone read the writings of Herzl and other top Zionist writers, he will them to be more Jew-haters than all the non-Jews put together.

“It’s hard to imagine a Richard Falk, a Noam Chomsky, a Jacqueline Rose or others of their ilk feeling love for the Jewish people or losing any sleep over the people’s fate. What they’re enamored by is their image of themselves as Jews who have the moral courage to attack a Jewish state and the moral impunity to do so, which their Jewishness gives them. (“What, me anti-Jewish? I’m a Jew myself!”) Far from being self-hating Jews, they are self-loving Jews of the I’m-not-one-of-you variety. If you can think of a catchier way to put that, let me know,” wrote Philologos.

Noam Chomsky would never debate Jeff Blankfort

Dr. Chomsky, born into a Zionist Jewish family who lived on a Jewish kibbutz built on stolen land – is strong critic of US foreign policy but he denies the facts that Israel was behind 9/11 and that AIPAC controls US administrations. He also says that he is a supporter of Israel. Chomsky doesn’t identify himself with Jewishness and prefer to be called ‘humanist’.

Jeff Blankfort, an American writer and KZYX Radio host on international affairs, wrote in Chomsky and Palestine: Asset or Liability:
“At the end of the day, it is evident that Chomsky’s affection for Israel, his sojourn on a kibbutz, his Jewish identity, and his early experiences with anti-Semitism to which he occasionally refers have colored his approach to every aspect of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians and explain his defense of Israel. That is his right, of course, but not to pretend at the same that he is an advocate for justice in Palestine. That same background may also explain his resistance to acknowledging the very obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy which he, like many others who share a similar history, interpret as “blaming the Jews,” a most taboo subject. It is, without a doubt, far more comfortable for him and his followers to continue insisting that US support for Israel is based on it being a “strategic asset” for the United States even when an increasing number of mainstream observers who are not linked to AIPAC or the Zionist establishment have judged it to be a liability. Should not Chomsky himself, on the basis of his own statements, be judged as to whether he is an asset or a liability for the Palestinian cause? If they have not already done so, serious supporters of that cause, including Palestinians, need to ask themselves that question”.

Jacqueline Rose, Jewish author, is no enemy of the Zionist entity. She only wants its anti-Arab policies to be humanized. Rose proposes that the link between the Holocaust and the founding of the Jewish state, so often used to justify Israel’s policies, needs to be rethought in terms of the shame felt by the first leaders of the nation toward their own European history.

Lenni Brenner, a renowned Zionist historian, wrote an open letter to Benji Netyanahu early this month, saying:
“You recently addressed America’s Congress. Many Americans support some of your positions. But few can outline your Likud Party’s politics beyond your speech, or know anything about its history. Revisionist Zionism is the dominant ideological movement in the party. Indeed your father was secretary to Vladimir Jabotinsky, Revisionism’s founder. But how many American politicians can define Revisionism? How many American Jews have read even one word by Jabotinsky?”

And in conclusion, Israel is NOT a ‘Jewish state’. It’s not even an ‘apartheid state’. United Nations doesn’t recognize it as a ’Jewish state’. It’s a western colonial entity dumped on Palestine to solve Europe’s centuries-old Jewish Problem.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: