The more Juif becomes Theresa, the more antisemitic becomes Britain.

February 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Today, the Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported that the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain in 2016 were the highest on record. The CST’s statistics show that there were 1,309 incidents of ‘Jew hatred’ last year — a 36 per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

Of course, the CST is not a reliable source and its‘antisemitism figures’ have been debunked numerous times before. However, if these statistics are accurate, they suggest only that the more the British government invests in fighting anti-Semitism…. the more antisemitic Britain becomes.

This is easy enough to explain. The fight against antisemitism is now a profitable industry.  Every day, we learn of some new Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism and to hunt down the Jew haters, and all at the expense of the British tax payer*.

And, as always in the case of Israel and Zionism, these organisation are financially sustained by the very Jewish hatred they seek to oppose. And, when there is no Jew hatred to be found, they will either induce, or even invent some.

For instance, we learned in the last few weeks that Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) launched a war against popular cult figure David Icke. The same Stephen Silverman who launched this war also launched a war against musician Alison Chabloz for expressing her thoughts on Holocaust religion by means of a cabaret performance.

These ugly campaigns against British truth-seekers are unlikely to make UK Jewry popular. Quite the opposite. Both these campaigns immediately backfired – Alison’s work went viral and the campaign against Icke proved only that Icke’s investigation into Rothschild Zionism is not only legitimate, it is actually essential.  These campaigns clearly are not going to silence Icke or Chabloz but they will confirm  that Jewish institutions here in Britain do not subscribe to the notion of freedom of thought and elementary human rights.

Dave Rich, Deputy Director of Communications at the CST told the JC: “I think there is an overall climate rather than one specific thing that is responsible for the rise in (antisemitic) incidents.”

Rich is wrong. There is one crucial factor in the rise in opposition to Jews and their politics: Jewish power has lost all its subtlety. It is now crude and vulgar and manifested right out in the open: whether it is the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party or theIsraeli embassy crudely interfering with British party politics or the constant hunting of critics of Israel or even the impunity of suspected child molester Lord Janner – more and more Brits are now reading between the lines. They have had enough.

If the British government is really concerned about antisemitism, it could eliminate it in no time at all. It must immediately strip Jewish organisations of any special treatment and funds and  must stop spending millions on the CST and all the other Jews-only paramilitary organisations operating in the kingdom.

We all agree that racism is a bad thing, so let’s fight it in a universal manner rather than following the whims of one particular tribe.

* Theresa May vowed recently to allocate more than 13.4 million pounds annually to Jewish security matters.

Hasbara is Desperate to stop David Icke (video)

January 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

But with Goldman Sachs and Soros destroying one country after another, they do not stand a chance. By now we are all Palestinians.  David Icke knows it and he is not alone!!!

The following pathetic video was produced by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, an Israeli Hasbara unit operating in Britain. This video won’t hurt David Icke. Instead, it proves once again that Jewish power is the ability to silence discussion on Jewish power.  This power is proving less effective by the day.


Israel National News Against Gilad Atzmon

December 10, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Jews can be anti-Semites too!” is the title of Jewish settlers outlet Israel National News’ article dedicated to my work by one Manfred Gerstenfeld.  Needless to mention that being subject to a smear campaign led by the Israeli ultra nationalist outlet is pretty much the kind of publicity I wish for. However, I would point out to Gerstenfeld that his title is slightly misleading. Jews are not Semites and I haven’t even been a Jew for two decades now.

Settler Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that yours truly is an ‘antisemite’. Let’s examine his arguments, one by one. I am genuinely quoted as saying that I am totally “against Holocaust denial.”  I clearly resent those who deny the genocides taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example…” (

I guess that in the eyes of settler Gerstenfeld, supporting Palestine equals anti-Semitism.  But considering the obvious fact that the Palestinians are Semites*, taking their side is actually the ultimate form of philo-Semitism. But I will dutifully address Gerstenfeld’s concern regarding the Holocaust and its denial. I believe that history must be subject to revision. This applies, as well, to the Holocaust otherwise it becomes alienated from history and alien to historicity. The Holocaust in its current state is reduced into a religion, a dogma. To insist that the Holocaust is subject to revision is by no means a form of denial. On the contrary, it integrates this chapter into our human past. It becomes a universal ethical lesson instead of another celebration of the primacy of Jewish suffering.  Such a transition in our take on the holocaust can prevent the Jews and their institutions from repeating the same mistakes that they have made throughout their history, having made the Jewish past look like a Shoah continuum.

Gerstenfeld, who writes in an ultra right-wing settler outlet curiously complains that in my work I “attack”, as well, some Jewish anti-Zionists. In an article titled Goyim Must Obey, Atzmon accuses the Jewish anti-Zionists of telling “Goyim and even Palestinians what they may or may not do and who they may or may not listen to.”  Here, Gerstenfeld’s language lacks accuracy. I do not “attack” people. This is what Israel does to its enemies. I actually criticize people whom I believe to be wrong. My weapon is my pen. However, the quote above is genuine and I stand by my words. I believe Jewish political lobbying is a total disaster.  It is very dangerous for Jews, in particular.

I am indeed critical of all forms of Jewish politics, left and right, Zionist and ‘anti’. I challenge Jewish political identification because it is racially oriented. I argue in the open that from a Judeo-centric perspective Israel and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) are identical. We are dealing with two racially exclusive Jewish clubs. In fact, and this is slightly embarrassing, Israel may even be mildly less racist than JVP, for in the Israeli Knesset the 3rd biggest party is Arab, yet JVP leadership is purely and exclusively Jewish.

Gerstenfeld mistakenly writes, “Atzmon even attacks Jews who completely disavow Judaism and Zionism.” Once again the settler believes that I have “attacked” Shlomo Sand and Avigail Abarbanel. I have great respect for Sand and dedicated to his work a chapter in my previous book, “The Wandering Who.”  I am critical of some aspects of the work of Sand and of Abarbanel. And yet, I wonder, does intellectual criticism of Jewish writers equate to anti-Semitism? If it does, it suggests that Jews are actually beyond criticism. This is probably the real meaning of  “chosenness” in the eyes of some rabid Zionists.

Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that I am an anti-Semite. But the one thing he can’t find is where I express hatred to Jews for being Jews. Instead, he seeks the help of the IHRA’s (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism. According to the IHRA “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, as such, or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, is an example of anti-Semitism.”

Gerstenfeld suggests that some of my remarks fall in the above category. Gerstenfeld then attempts at cherry-picking but fails to find fruit.  “Why are the Jews, a people who are obsessed with their own past, so afraid of other people, say, ‘White’ people, being nostalgic for their own past?” ( Gerstenfeld is kind enough to also quote my answer. “The progressive Jew grasps that the working class is nostalgic for a pre-Jerusalem-dominated society – a time when American politics wasn’t controlled by the likes of Saban, Soros, Goldman Sachs and other global capitalists who are isolated from production, manufacturing, and farming.”

Gerstenfeld foolishly fell into a trap here. He actually admits that my reference is not to the Jewish people, per se, but to the progressive Jews which is a politically identified sector within American Jewry.

I do accept that Gerstenfeld is not happy with me pointing the finger at Jewish oligarchs like Soros, Saban and, more precisely, at their corrosive role within American politics. But maybe Gerstenfeld should make sure that Jewish press outlets stop bragging about Jewish billionaires being the ‘Five Top Democratic Donors’ as they do here, here and here

Gerstenfeld, who is probably not the most developed thinker, repeats the same mistake. The IHRA definition asserts that “accusing Jews ‘as a people’ of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews is anti-Semitism.” I totally agree with the IHRA definition. Jewish people shouldn’t be implicated collectively by the crime of a single Jewish felon, a sex offender, or a tyrant.  But in the following quote I suggest the complete opposite. “Talking of apologies, the Board of Deputies (BOD) has yet to apologize for Lord Janner allegedly raping British orphans when he was their president and therefore pretty much the representative of British Jews.”

Rather than asking Jews, or British Jews, for that matter, to disassocite themselves from Lord Janner, I expect the Board of Deputies of British Jews to apologize for the sex crimes allegedly committed by their President, especially because the BOD claims to represent British Jews. Is it truly anti-Semitic, I wonder, to expect Jewish institutions to take responsibility for their actions and associations?

In my recent satirical dictionary “A to Zion” I define anti Semites as ‘brutally honest people, often of Jewish origin.’ I guess that I should confess. I am brutally honest and I was a Jew for thirty years.


* I am fully a ware that Semite is a reference to a set of languages rather than race.

Twitter joined the Zionist Purge –An Interview with Jo Stowell

November 26, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Jo Stowell-" freedom of speech in the UK is an illusion"

Jo Stowell-” freedom of speech in the UK is an illusion”

A Zionist purge is taking place on twitter. The  British ultra Zionist Community Security Trust (CST)  reported recently that it has been “collaborating”  with the social network platform for sometime to stop the so-called ‘antisemites.’  I guess that the freedom to express your thoughts about Israel or Jewish politics is now officially restricted on Twitter. Is this going to make Israeli politics or Jewish lobbying more popular amongst those with a critical eye on politics? I really doubt it.

Every day I learn about more friends who happen to find out about their Twitter accounts being terminated for criticising Israel. The latest one, in an ever growing list of activists, is Jo Stowell, Jo is a genius photographer, a staunch opponent of the Jewish lobby as well as a master Twitterati and a supporter of the right for free speech. I spoke with Jo this morning

GA: I do realise that a score of anti Zionists have been kicked out of Twitter in recent days, can you brief us about it?

JS: Your are correct. I believe that freedom of speech in the UK is basically an illusion. UK citizens have been indoctrinated since birth to think and behave according to a historical political narrative. Anyone deviating from this “accepted” narrative is always labeled a radical, a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, a member of the far left, or far right, a Marxist, a communist, an antisemite, an islamophobe, lunatic, etc. etc.

 People seem to have a visceral, as opposed to a cogent, reaction to the question of why Zionist Israelis are the only people on the planet allowed to be nationalist? In fact, you’re not even allowed to question anything about Zionist Israeli politics and power in the UK. The reaction of Twitter to me is clearly proof of that. 

Anyone challenging and questioning the perceived “established order” of things is banned from Twitter and, in some cases, arrested, harassed, bullied and subject to intensive abuse (including physical threats of harm). From my perspective, the UK police are powerless to act against this abuse and in some regards are complicit in the inertia. 

GA:  Can you tell us about the emerging collaboration between the ultra Zionist Community Security Trust (CST) and Twitter?

JS: I first noticed the collaboration between CST and Twitter when anonymous vicious “trolls” targeted my tweets by tagging in CST along with Barnet police and/or Metropolitan Police forces. Subsequently, at approximately 1am,  I was called by a policeman from Barnet Police Station (which by the way is the head quarters for CST ) who insisted on persistently calling me an antisemite. I was shocked by this action from what I was told was an “officer of the law”. Futhermore, if this was an officially sanctioned intervention, why was my local police force (Avon and Somerset) not the harbinger of such devastating accusations. The officer was dismissive, abusive and unprofessional with me and put the phone down on me when I tried to explain the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Clearly, not someone who was impartial and seeking to find out the facts.

A few days later, however, I was visited by my local police force who said there had been a complaint made against me by the CST. The CST  claimed that I was inciting hatred of all Jewish people because of my tweets. I asked how I could offend a ‘charity’ and the policeman couldn’t answer. I also asked for the name of a person that I could apologise to and discuss my thoughts about Zionism and Israeli politics. The policeman refused,  stating that he had no actual names and that “his hands were tied.”

 So I’ve now concluded, that any Zionist Israeli, or an individual with an affiliated religious belief, in the UK can go to CST claiming to be offended and CST will target, harass and abuse the perpetrator using a network of online trolls and the UK police to do it.

 What is most disturbing is that these actions are being instigated by an anonymous organisation. Think about it, a UK government funded “charity”, whose only prerogative is to stifle debate about the action of a certain state and those that affiliate themselves with it, has the power to shut people up in the UK.

Can Jews ever leave their Cult?

By Gilad Atzmon

Baruch Spinoza left the Jews. Heinrich Heine became a Christian. A few others, such as Israel Shamir and myself, a decade ago, simply drifted away.

Recently, Israeli historian Shlomo Sand announced that he too was no longer a Jew. I read his manuscript in Hebrew with great interest but soon realized that while he indeed stopped identifying as a Jew, he still hadn’t removed himself from kosher binaries.

“I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,” (How I Ceased To Be A Jew  p’ 21). Lines like these, echoing as they do the language of the ADL, made me feel very uncomfortable and, when it came to the Holocaust, Sand, who is usually so astute and profound, somehow managed to lose it. The Nazis are  “beasts”, and their rise to power metaphorically he described as a “beast awakening from its lair.”  Despite my respect for Sand, I would expect a leading, inspirational  historian and a former-Jew to have moved beyond such banal  Hasbara-recycled clichés.

This week, in the Jewish progressive magazine Mondoweiss, Avigail Abarbanel, an ex-Israeli and anti- Zionist informed us that she too has now ‘left the cult,’. I agreed with most of Abarbanel’s arguments against Israel and Zionism but I was nonetheless alarmed at the intellectual dishonesty at the core of her argument.

“Rarely can people inside a cult see where they are. If they could, the cult wouldn’t be what it is” Abarbanel points out. “They think that they are members of a special group that has a special destiny, and is always under threat.

Thus does Abarbanel describe the Israelis, yet she fails to mention that this is also an accurate description of the Jewish left in general and the Mondoweiss/JVP cults in particular, to which she herself belongs. As we now know, just as Israel claims for itself a special place amongst the states of the world, so do the anti-Zionist Jews who, when it comes to Anti Israeli politics, operate within Jewish, racially exclusive political cells (JVP, IJAN etc.). So, if Abarbanel thinks that Israelis are at fault for being a ‘special group’ perhaps she should inform us what is the criterion that legitimates JVP and Mondoweiss being a special group within the solidarity movement?

Abarbanel continues: “cult members are taught from birth that the world outside is dangerous, that they have to huddle together for safety.” This is indeed a good description of Israeli collective psychosis, but it is also a prefect portrayal of Mondoweiss’ operational mode and it  puts Mondoweiss’ campaign against Alison Weir and Greta Berlin in perfect context. It also explains why Mondoweiss banned Jeffrey Blankfort and why the Jewish outlet changed its comment policy just to make sure that it can block any attempt to criticise the Jewish state in the light of Jewish culture and my own study of Jewish tribalism. Just like Israel, Mondoweiss is terrified of the ‘dangerous worl d out there’. As far as Abarbanel’s definition of cult is concerned, Mondoweiss, JVP and Israel are actually identical.

Abarbanel is obsessed with the holocaust and this is hardly surprising. The Holocaust is currently the most popular Jewish religion.  The Israeli prominent philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz observed in the 1970s that Jews believe in many different things but all Jews believe in the Holocaust.

“Have I forgotten the holocaust? No. Of course not,” Abarbanel writes. “Persecution of Jewish people throughout history was very real indeed.”

And if you expect Abarbanel, a psychotherapist by profession, to question why is it that Jews have been ‘hated throughout history,’ you’re probably wasting your time. In Abarbanel’s universe, the persecution of the Jews is a metaphysical constant. It is beyond questioning.

In her view, Jews are victims and the Goyim are oppressors.

“Jews were a hated and despised group among many cultures in Europe, and Jews have always had an uneasy co-existence with non-Jews. Any marginalised or persecuted group has an uneasy relationship with the dominant culture. Once you have been discriminated against it’s hard to trust.”

So again, despite ‘leaving the cult,’ Abarbanel’s take on the holocaust is well within that same Hasbara cult she claims to have left.

Actually, one would expect a psychotherapist to advise the Jews to look in the mirror and actually identify what is it about them that invokes so much animosity in so many different times and in so many different places. This is something Bernard Lazare, an early Zionist did just over a century ago when he identified what it was in the Jews that has made Jewish history into such a disastrous continuum. Sadly, Abarbanel falls far short of this task. Unable or unwilling to examine what is it in the Jew or in Jewishness that invokes animosity, for her, this is one step too far because to look into that question may suggest that Israel is not the problem, it is but a symptom of the problem.

In Abarbanel’s universe, the Jews are always the victims and all they have to do is to separate their victimhood from their identity. This is strange since if victimhood is embedded in Jewish existence, then surely it must also be inherent in Jewish identity. My guess is that the day Jews manage to distinguish between their victimhood and their identity will be the day they simply stop being Jews.


A Reply to Angry American: Another Reading of Struggle with the Zionist Entity


In his Article titled July Victory is not eternal and have the shelf life, the Angry American (know as Angry Arab) claimed that Hezbollah’s July victory has expired, the strategy  of Hezbollah in the face of the Israeli enemy is no longer clear. He presumed that the resistance can’t «live» by «consumption» of this victory?

“To continue as a resistance movement, Hezbollah should  clarify his position and duties as a resistance movement against the Israeli enemy. Hezbollah can’t depend on his historical performance in Resisting Israel to Justify his military intervention in Syria (which began with the slogan protection of religious shrines). “

The Angry American claimed that the resistance do not agree on every Hezbollah acts.

Hezbollah’s resistance should be confined and must be limited to fighting the Zionist occupation, within Lebanese territory.

Hezbollah’s resistance is legal only, until the liberation of the remaining occupied Lebanese territory?

Moreover, according to the Angry….hole

The Syrian regime spent the legitimacy of the October War to avoid another war to liberate the Golan Heights, because the regime claimed, he was always busy in preparing for the battle did not come».

Hezbollah can’t remain in the state of no peace and no war, and should not follow the Syrian regime’s behavior after the Yom Kippur war.

The Party of God, and the Syrian regime, in order not to lose the resistance, «legitimacy», should give the absolute and permanent priority to liberate the occupied by the Zionist enemy. [MOST LIKELY THE AMERICAN ANGRY “ARAB” IS REFERING TO SHEBA FARMS AND GOLAN HEIGHTS, NOT TO PALESTINE FROM RIVER TO SEA]

In his reply, Mr. Ghalib Abu Musleh criticized the Angry American, because:

  • Hezbollah never claimed being a comprehensive Lebanese national liberation movement
  • Hezbollah never been a Lebanese Entity, confining his main concern and aspirations of the land of Lebanon. He did not say one day that the Zionist entity is the only enemy. Hezbollah is a  «Shiite» structure, ispired by several sources, the most important is of his community and its struggle throughout Islamic history.  Hezbollah is a Lebanese, Arabic and Islamist party, who fought the «Israeli» American «Atlantic» the invasion of Lebanon, and their local allies and followers. According to the Party the «arrogance»states, the global capitalist system centers in the phase most monopolistic and globalization, must be fought as an enemy not only over the Lebanese territory, but also on the level of the Arab and Islamic surroundings.
  • Moreover, Hezbollah is not Palestinian a party, even though, he somehow, the largest faction resistant to the Zionist entity, and aspires to participate in the liberation of all Palestinian soil. Hezbollah operational vision, was established cross-resisting the invasion of «Israeli» American «Atlantic» of Lebanon in 1982, and through the structure of Islamic resistance , and through its association with the Iranian revolution, Khomeini, and his alliance with Syria. Through the practice of resistance, Hezbollah realized the local, regional and international dimensions and the complex nature of the enemy.
  • Victories are not like sardine cans, and have no expiry dates. According to the Marxist Angry american July victory is not “final” like  Algerian and Vietnamese revolutions victories, and the victories of the Soviet Union over Nazism.  He ignore that the Great Soviet revolution fell after seventy years of the establishment of the soviet union, and Russia today do not reflect the aspirations of Lenin and his comrades. And the inspiring Vietnamese revolution And the Vietnamese revolution suggestive of the peoples of the world, contrary to communism,  is moving toward neo-liberalism and not on the road to building socialism.
  • July victory is the first complete defeat of the aggression by the Zionist entity on the Arab arena, not only Lebanon. Israel Army could not achieve any tactical field goal… So, the war in July formed a historic turning point in the conflict with the Zionist entity, and in the poor Arab time, and pushed towards the end of this entity is inevitable, in conjunction with the acceleration of global variables, and changed the balance of power, and the end of empires. So why the writer asserts that the legitimacy of the victory in July limited, and presumed that the resistance «live» by «consumption» of this victory? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Assaad Abu Khalil is an American and like many of Arab “Activists” he has to prove his loyalty to the Anglo-Zionist Empire and the shortest way for that is to criticize for being a member of the Axis of Resistance, and to attack real friends of Palestine such as Gilad Atzmon who dared to  talk about Jewishness, Jewish identity and power

In Case You Missed It


The Angry (Arab) Collaborator

Gilad Atzmon: It took me many years before I realized that the place I was born in was in fact occupied Palestine.

Consequently Gilad, the Hebrew Speaking Palestinian as he call himself, decided to leave Occupied Palestine to return when Palestine is liberated from river to sea

مع جلعاد أتزمون عازف الساكسفون العالمي ,كاتب سياسي

ماذا يخبرنا الجندي الاسرائيلي السابق و عازف الساكسفون العالمي جلعاد أتزمون عن آرائه و أفكاره السياسية و الفلسفية الحديثة و المثيرة للجدل عن الهوية اليهودية و سيطرة اللوبي الاسرائيلي على السياسة البريطانية و التي دفعت الكثيرين من اليمين و اليسار الى مهاجمته.

من الداخل
برنامج حواري مدته نصف ساعة مع وجوه سياسية وبحثية غربية، محوره مقاربة القضية أو الشخصية “من الداخل”. باللغة الانكليزية مترجم للعربية.

According to the “Angry American” calling himself the “Angry Arab” Atzmon is  “anti-Jewish”  and should be rejected from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement

” People have been asking me about him a lot as of late: in the UK and the US. I make it very clear: this is somebody that we should reject from the pro-Palestinian advocacy movement. He is anti-Jewish and his offensive language against Jews and Judaism should be categorically rejected. I would put the name of Israel Shamir in the same category. Anti-Semites belong to the Zionist side, and not to our side.

Posted by As’ad Abu Khalil 28.February 2012.

رد على أسعد أبو خليل : قراءة مغايرة للصراع في المشرق

غالب أبو مصلح

من واجب المثقف الحريص على المقاومة واستهدافاتها نقدها، دون تردد، إذا ما ظن أن هناك أخطاراً تهددها، أو مزالق تواجهها. وحتى النقد الذي لا يصيب مواقع الخطأ يكون مفيداً، إذا ما أثار نقاشاً عقلانياً حول المقاومة.

ربما كان بعض النقد للمقاومة نتاج سوء فهم لبنيتها وفكرها واستهدافاتها. بعض المثقفين يقرأون في المقاومة ما يتمنون، فيلبسونها عباءة لا تتناسب مع حقيقتها. وهناك من يقرأ في المقاومة أكثر مما فيها، فيراها أداة التغيير الثوري الشامل للنظام اللبناني، والقادرة على انتشال النظام من مأزقه البنيوي، السياسي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي. ولكن مقاومة حزب الله التي حققت الكثير من الإنجازات العسكرية والأمنية على الصعيد الوطني، غير مهيئة وغير قادرة على أن تكون أداة التغيير المطلوب. ولم يدّعِ حزب الله يوماً أنه حركة تحرير وطني شامل، تسعى إلى الإمساك بالسلطة وتحرير الإنسان، اقتصادياً واجتماعياً، مع تحرير الأرض من الاحتلال.

كما أن حزب الله لم يكن يوماً كيانياً لبنانياً، يحصر همّه وطموحاته بأرض لبنان. لم يقل يوماً إن الكيان الصهيوني هو عدوه الأوحد. حزب الله ذو بنية «شيعية»، يستقي ثوريته من منابع عدة، أهمها تاريخ طائفته ونضالها عبر التاريخ الإسلامي. هو حزب لبناني عربي إسلامي، قاتل الاجتياح «الإسرائيلي» ــ الأميركي ــ «الأطلسي» للبنان، كما حلفاء هؤلاء وأتباعهم المحليين. يرى الحزب في دول «الاستكبار»، أي مراكز النظام الرأسمالي العالمي في مرحلته الأكثر احتكارية وعولمة، عدواً وجب قتاله والتصدي لعدوانيته، ليس فوق الأرض اللبنانية فقط، بل أيضاً على صعيد محيطه العربي والإسلامي.

وليس حزب الله حزباً فلسطينياً، رغم كونه، بشكل ما، أكبر فصيل مقاوم للكيان الصهيوني، ويطمح للمشاركة في تحرير كامل التراب الفلسطيني. تبلورت رؤية حزب الله العملانية، عبر مقاومته للاجتياح «الإسرائيلي» ــ الأميركي ــ «الأطلسي» للبنان سنة 1982، وعبر بنيته كمقاومة «إسلامية»، وعبر ارتباطه بالثورة الخمينية الإيرانية، وتحالفه مع النظام السوري. ومن خلال ممارسته للمقاومة، تجذر وعيه لطبيعة العدو المركب الذي يقاتل، مما أعطى مقاومته أبعاداً محلية وإقليمية ودولية. من خلال هذا الفهم لحزب الله، يمكن نقده ومطالبته بتغيير أدائه وإعادة ترتيب أولوياته واستهدافاته المرحلية والعملانية.

في مقالته المنشورة في «الأخبار»، بعنوان «نصر تموز، هل له مدة صلاحية، أم أنه أبدي الأجل»، يضع أسعد أبو خليل قوانين «تاريخية» لا يهتم كثيراً في تبريرها وعقلنتها، وهي بحاجة إلى نقاش جاد. يقول أبو خليل:

«الانتصارات، مهما كبرت، مدى صلاحية، وآجالها ليست لا نهائية، إلا في حالات تتحقق فيها كل أهداف الحركة الثورية أو التحررية».

ويضع الكاتب في خانة الانتصارات «النهائية» الثورتين الجزائرية والفييتنامية، كما انتصارات الاتحاد السوفياتي على النازية.

لا نستطيع تجاوز ركاكة لغة بعض الجمل، بما فيها العنوان، كما سوء استعمال بعض الكلمات، والذي يموّه المعاني المقصودة، مثل «صلاحية الانتصارات وآجالها». فالانتصارات ليست مثل علب السردين، ذات صلاحية محددة لتناولها بعد مدة معينة من تاريخ إنتاجها. وأعتقد أن الكاتب يعني «وهج» الأحداث وإيحاءاتها ومعانيها بالنسبة للشعوب، واستمرار مفاعيلها وما حملته من تغييرات. وحتى حسب هذا التفسير، فقول الكاتب غير صحيح. كل شيء في هذا الكون إلى زوال، وكما يقول المعرّي «ولنار المريخ من هذيان الدهر مطفٍ، وإن علت في اتقاد». فالثورة السوفياتية العظمى سقطت بعد سبعين عاماً على قيامها، وعلى يد سكّير روسي متأمرك. وروسيا الاتحادية اليوم لا تجسد طموحات لينين ورفاقه. والثورة الفييتنامية الموحية لشعوب العالم، تسير اليوم في ركب عدوها الأميركي، ونحو الليبرالية الجديدة المناقضة للشيوعية، وليس على طريق بناء الاشتراكية.

لكن الأحداث الكبيرة الموحية، انتصارات كانت أم هزائم، تحتفظ بالكثير من وهجها وقدرتها على الإيحاء بالنسبة للشعوب. فالصهاينة يحتفلون حتى اليوم بالـ«ماسادا»، بعد آلاف السنين من حدوثها المفترض، ولا زال الصهاينة يُذكّرون العالم يومياً بـ«المحرقة» النازية، ويستغلونها على كل الصعد، السياسية والاقتصادية والثقافية. وتتذكر الجماهير العربية، والسورية منها خاصة، معركة ميسلون، كما يتذكر العرب، والفلسطينيون خاصة، مجازر قبية ودير ياسين. وما زالت انتصارات صلاح الدين وخالد بن الوليد وطارق بن زياد، كما نضالات عمر المختار وعبد القادر الجزائري وسلطان الأطرش، موحية ونابضة حتى اليوم. فلماذا تكون «شرعية نصر تموز محدودة»؟ كلمة «شرعية» هنا في غير محلها، ولا معنى لها.

مثّل نصر تموز أول هزيمة كاملة لعدوان الكيان الصهيوني على محيطه العربي، وليس على لبنان فقط. لم يستطع جيش الكيان الصهيوني تحقيق أي هدف تكتيكي ميداني له، وهُزم على يد مقاومة شعبية، لا تُقاس قدراتها بقدرات أي جيش عربي قاتل «إسرائيل». واستطاعت مقاومة حزب الله، ونصر تموز صفحة من تاريخها، أن تُسقط أسطورة «الجيش الذي لا يُقهر». بذلك، شكّلت حرب تموز منعطفاً تاريخياً في الصراع مع الكيان الصهيوني، وفي الزمن العربي الرديء، ودفعت بهذا الكيان نحو نهايته المحتومة، بالتزامن مع تسارع المتغيرات العالمية، وتبدّل موازين القوى، ونهاية الإمبراطوريات. فلماذا يجزم الكاتب أن شرعية نصر تموز محدودة، ويفترض أن المقاومة «تعيش» عبر «استهلاك» هذا الانتصار؟

ربما كان بعض النقد للمقاومة نتاج سوء فهم لبنيتها وفكرها واستهدافاتها

يقول أبو خليل:

«لم تعد استراتيجية حزب الله في مواجهة العدو الإسرائيلي واضحة. كان الحزب في موقف جلي في كل سنوات الصراع مع إسرائيل بعد اجتياح 1982 وبعد انطلاقته، يمارس المقاومة الشاملة ضد جميع أهداف العدو».

ثم يقول:

«إن مهمة الحزب، لو أراد أن يستمر كحركة مقاومة، تتطلب منه إصدار موقف واضح في مهامه كحركة مقاومة في مواجهة العدو الإسرائيلي. لا يستطيع الحزب أن يستعين برصيده من الشرعية السياسة التي استقاها من المقاومة في تدخله العسكري في سورية (والذي بدأ بشعار حماية المزارات الدينية)… لكن حلفاء المقاومة، كحركة مقاومة ضد العدو الإسرائيلي، لا يوافقون على كل أفعال الحزب».

إن الكاتب من بلدة «القليلة» في ضواحي صور، أستاذ العلوم السياسية في جامعة كاليفورنيا في الولايات المتحدة، والتي ربما يحمل جنسيتها، ويوقّع مقالاته في موقعه على الإنترنت باسم «العربي الغاضب»، شاهد الاجتياح «الإسرائيلي» للبنان سنة 1982، قبل أن يغادر إلى الولايات المتحدة لإكمال دراسته. ولا شك في أنه تابع بدقة مسيرة الاجتياح ونمو المقاومة من هناك. وهو يدرك طبيعة الصراع في لبنان وعليه، إبان الاجتياح كما بعد اندحاره. هو يدرك أن اجتياح لبنان جاء عبر خطة «الصنوبرة المتوسطة»، بقيادة أرييل شارون للقوات «الإسرائيلية»، وقيادة فيليب حبيب للاجتياح ككل. واحتفلت الولايات المتحدة بسقوط بيروت، ناسبة الفضل في هذا «الإنجاز» لفيليب حبيب، وليس لشارون وبيغن. وشهدت شواطئ لبنان حشداً من البوارج وحاملات الطائرات «الأطلسية»، ما لم يشاهده شرقي البحر المتوسط منذ الحرب العالمية الثانية.

وشاهد الكاتب، ولو عن بعد كبير، قصف البوارج الأميركية والطائرات الأميركية والفرنسية المنطلقة من حاملات الطائرات، لمواقع المقاومة في الجبال المطلة على بيروت. وشاهد سقوط مقاتلتين أميركيتين بصواريخ «سام 2» السورية.

وشاهد تفجير مبنى السفارة الأميركية في بيروت، بينما كانت قيادات المخابرات الأميركية في الشرق الأوسط مجتمعة فيها، كما شاهد تفجير مقر الـ«مارينز» والمظليين الفرنسيين في بيروت، على يد رجال «المقاومة الإسلامية».

ويدرك الكاتب أن اجتياح لبنان كان ضمن استراتيجية أميركية، تشمل الشرق الأوسط كله، للتصدي للتمدد السوفياتي في آسيا الوسطى والشرق الأوسط، كما نتيجة «الثورة الإسلامية» الإيرانية، التي هددت المصالح الإمبريالية الأميركية في الخليج، وأصبحت تهدد وجود قاعدته الأساسية، الكيان الصهيوني. كان اجتياح لبنان من قِبل عدو مركّب، له استهدافاته اللبنانية والإقليمية والدولية. ومهّدت الولايات المتحدة لهذا الاجتياح بإشعال تمردات بعض دول أوروبا الشرقية (بولندا وتشيكوسلوفاكيا خصوصاً)، كما تمردات الإخوان المسلمين في سورية، وبموجة عارمة من تدفق السلاح الأميركي والدعم المادي لـ«إسرائيل»، وبتمويل سعودي ــ أميركي لـ«القوات اللبنانية»، وربطها بالموساد «الإسرائيلي»، تدريباً وتسليحاً، وهجماتها على قوات الردع السورية في لبنان، بعد أن أنقذتها هذه القوات من هزيمة محققة على يد تحالف الجبهة الوطنية اللبنانية وفصائل الثورة الفلسطينية. كما أن ضباطاً أميركيين قد أمسكوا بقيادة الجيش اللبنانية في اليرزة.

فكيف يدعي الكاتب أن مهمة مقاومة حزب الله انحصرت، ويجب أن تنحصر بقوات الاحتلال الصهيوني فقط، وفوق الأرض اللبنانية فقط، وهو «العربي الغاضب»، وليس اللبناني الانعزالي المتقوقع؟

وكيف يقرر أن «مشروعية» مقاومة حزب الله مشروطة بتواصل قتاله «إسرائيل» فقط، حتى تحرير ما تبقى من أرض لبنانية محتلة؟ ألا تتناقض هذه «النصيحة» مع مسيرة حزب الله إبان العدوان الأميركي ــ «الإسرائيلي» وبعده؟

ويعتقد الكاتب

أن النظام السوري «أنفق شرعية حرب تشرين لتجنب خوض حرب أخرى لتحرير الجولان، لأن النظام، حسب زعمه، كان دائماً منهمكاً في التحضير لمعركة لم تأتِ».

وكذلك الأمر بالنسبة لحزب الله،

«لا تستطيع المقاومة في لبنان أن تدخل أو أن تبقى في حالة اللاسلم واللاحرب، التي طبعت سلوك النظام السوري بعد حرب تشرين»

.يعتقد الكاتب،وحسب رؤيته الاستراتيجية الشاملة،

أن على حزب الله، كما على النظام السوري، إعطاء الأولوية المطلقة والدائمة والوحيدة للعدو الصهيوني، لتحرير الأرض المحتلة من قبل هذا العدو، كي لا يفقد النظام، كما المقاومة، «شرعيتهما»،

ويغيّب التهديد الاستراتيجي لداعش والنصرة وأخواتهما، من عشرات التنظيمات التكفيرية التي ربّتها الولايات المتحدة وموّلتها أشباه المستعمرات الأميركية في شبه الجزيرة العربية، واحتضنتها تركيا، لتكون حليفة موضوعية لـ«إسرائيل»، وأداة اجتياح وتدمير أميركية ــ «أطلسية» للوطن العربي بأكمله.

ولا يرى الكاتب في جرائم هذه القوى التكفيرية وممارساتها ما يوجب قتالها، ربما لأنها تدمر «النظام السوري» الذي لا يحبه.

لست أدري كيف يحتسب الكاتب رصيد المقاومات أو الأنظمة من «الشرعية» التي تكتسبها بالقتال، إذا ما توقفت عن القتال لاستكمال استعادة أراضيها المحتلة. وإذا طبقنا مقاييسه لاستهلاك شرعية الثورات التحررية والأنظمة، يكون النظام الصيني قد فقد شرعيته منذ عقود طويلة، لأنه لم يحرر جزيرة تايوان، التي كانت وما زالت تحت الحماية الأميركية. وكذلك الثورة الكوبية، التي لم تقاتل لتحرير «غوانتانامو» من الاحتلال الأميركي. وكذلك إسبانيا، التي لم تحرر جبل طارق من الاحتلال البريطاني؛ واليابان التي لم تحرر جزر «كوريل» من الاحتلال الروسي.

يذكر الكاتب في مقالته كيف أقامت الولايات المتحدة الجسر الجوي لنجدة «إسرائيل» في حرب تشرين 1973، حيث دفعت بكميات هائلة من الأسلحة والطائرات، بطواقمها الأميركية، وتحت العلم «الإسرائيلي»، لمنع انهيار قاعدتها الأهم في الشرق الأوسط. ويدرك الكاتب أن الحرب على العدو الصهيوني المحتل كان مستحيلاً لولا تعاضد الجبهتين الشرقية والغربية، ولولا مظلة الاتحاد السوفياتي وأسلحته المتطورة.

فكيف يسمح عاقل لنفسه بالتهجم على النظام السوري الذي لم يشن حرباً لتحرير الجولان بعد تفكك النظام العربي، وصلح نظام أنور السادات مع «إسرائيل»، وبعد تراجع قدرات الاتحاد السوفياتي بعد عهد بريجنيف، وانهياره أواخر الثمانينات؟

أية مزايدة هذه، وما المقصود منها؟

وليس صحيحاً أن النظام السوري، القابل للكثير من النقد القاسي، لم يخض حرباً بعد حرب تشرين؛ والكاتب يعرف ذلك. فقد تعرضت قوات الردع السورية في لبنان للاعتداءات «الإسرائيلية» المتكررة، ثم للاجتياح الأميركي ــ «الإسرائيلي». وقاتلت هذه القوات دفاعاً عن لبنان، كما دفاعاً عن سورية. وكانت أحد الخيارات الاستراتيجية الأميركية الثلاث للاجتياح، «الصنوبرة الكبرى»، التي تقضي باجتياح كامل الأراضي السورية بعد اجتياح لبنان.

ثم كانت سورية الدولة الثانية في برنامج الاجتياحات الأميركية لست دول عربية وإسلامية عند بداية الألفية الثالثة، وبعد أن أفلتت الإمبريالية الأميركية من عقالها إثر انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي. والذي أنقذ سورية من الاجتياح الأميركي، بعد اجتياح العراق وتدميره، هو المقاومة العراقية التي غذتها سورية بالسلاح والمقاتلين. ثم كانت الحرب التي تعرضت لها سورية، وما زالت حتى اليوم، وهو في الواقع اجتياح أميركي بالواسطة.

فلماذا يُسقط الكاتب واقع الحرب على سورية، ونضالات الجيش العربي السوري، منذ حرب تشرين وحتى اليوم؟

يدرك الكاتب أن حزب الله أصبح قوة إقليمية، تدافع عن لبنان ضد التهديد «الإسرائيلي»، كما التهديد الداعشي في سورية ولبنان. ويقاتل الحزب في سورية دفاعاً عن كل المهدَدين بالحركات التكفيرية، فوق الأرض العربية وخارجها. ويدرك الكاتب أنه إذا ما انتصر التكفيريون في سورية والعراق، أصبح الدفاع عن لبنان مستحيلاً.

أما أسئلة الكاتب التسعة «الملحة» لحزب الله، فقد أجاب الحزب عليها ميدانياً وإعلامياً منذ أمد طويل؛ ومخاوفه على المقاومة في غير محلها.

* كاتب لبناني


Out for Blood? Zionists Continue Their Attacks on Rep. Hank Johnson

Posted on August 4, 2016


Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia has repeatedly apologized for his remarks on Israeli settlements, remarks in which he likened settlements popping up all over the West Bank to a termite infestation.

Yet even so, the Zionists are still piling on him.

“The ripple effect continues for U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson a week after the Lithonia Democrat was quoted comparing Jewish settlement policy in the disputed West Bank to termites,’” reports the Atlanta Journal Constitution in an article published August 3.

This of course is what passes for US mainstream media coverage of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Tamar Hallerman, the author of the piece, demonstrates what would seem to be a rather pronounced lack of journalistic integrity in her reference to the West Bank as “disputed,” rather than occupied. The word “disputed” has for years been a hasbara talking point. The West Bank is viewed by virtually the entire world as rightfully belonging to the Palestinians and regarded as a vital ingredient to implementation of the so-called two-state solution.

And as such, the settlements are regarded as illegal under international law–something which Hallerman also fails to mention in her report. Virtually no one, other than Zionists and media functionaries like Hallerman, refer to the West Bank as “disputed.” The proper term is “occupied.”

At any rate, the main focus of her article is an editorial “blasting” Johnson which appeared at the Atlanta Jewish Times on Monday and which is quoted extensively.

“The editorial argues that if Johnson wants to receive votes from the pro-Israel community in the future, he’ll need to answer questions about what he was doing speaking at an event sponsored by a pro-Israeli-boycott group in the first place,” Hallerman reports.

“Meanwhile, Johnson’s apology tour continues. He met with the Atlanta chapter of the advocacy group the American Jewish Committee on Tuesday,” she adds.

Don’t you just love the term “apology tour”? It kind of falls into the same category as Philip Weiss’ comment about Jews dominating the American media–“and so what if we do?” It is of course imperative for Jews to try and downplay their political power, yet as we see every so often one or another will succumb to the temptation to boast about it.

So yes, Johnson is on a “tour” visiting various Jews and Jewish organizations, apologizing for his remarks. Here he is in an August 2 meeting with members of the American Jewish Committee, whose website urges visitors to “stop BDS in its tracks” by signing onto a form letter to Congress members:

 photo ajcjohnson_zpswomft8ur.jpg

The letter, by the way, describes BDS as a “virulent movement,” and following his meeting with the group, Johnson tweeted amicably, “Appreciate meeting w/ @AJCGlobal today to open important dialogue — especially w/ #ATL director @DovWilker. Thanks!”

Johnson’s initial remarks about termites were made at an event in Philadelphia on July 25. If you have not read my article, Termites and Israeli Settlers: A US Congressman’s Analogy, you might consider doing so. As I noted, the congressman’s critics seem to have little to say about racist rabbis in Israel who have articulated things far worse and who have even called for the murder of Palestinians.

The editorial at the Atlanta Jewish Times, cited by Hallerman, makes mention of the fact that Johnson holds the same congressional seat once held by Cynthia McKinney, and while the opinion piece seems to give him credit for being less of an “anti-Semite” than his predecessor, it doesn’t seem to cut him much else in the way of slack.

Unlike McKinney, the woman he defeated 10 years ago to win his seat in Congress, Johnson doesn’t hate Jews, many of whom have been crucial supporters, and he doesn’t spout conspiracy theories accusing Jews or Israelis of carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks.

But his attitude toward Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has changed in recent years, and he spoke July 25 as someone who has earned a reputation as a leading congressional critic of Israel.

That day he criticized Israel and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while lamenting the condition of the Palestinians. He portrayed Israelis as the villains and Palestinians as the victims, ignoring Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, incitement by Palestinian leaders and rocket fire from Gaza.

The editorial doesn’t divulge that Jewish donors hostile to McKinney funded Johnson’s campaign in a deliberate effort to unseat her. This, however, is indeed what took place. So of course the “many Jews” the editorial does allude to, i.e. those who have been Johnson’s “crucial supporters” in the past, obviously have plenty of reason to be irked!

Israeli Apartheid Explained with Humor

“He (Rep. Hank Johnson) portrayed Israelis as the villains and Palestinians as the victims, ignoring Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, incitement by Palestinian leaders and rocket fire from Gaza.”

–Atlanta Jewish Times

Moreover, the specter of McKinney apparently looms rather sinisterly in the anonymous editorial writer’s imagination. “Short of going full Cynthia McKinney, Congressman Hank Johnson couldn’t have done much more to anger the Jewish community than unleash a comparison between termites and Israelis living on the West Bank,” the person writes in what is essentially an unintended tribute to the former Georgia congresswoman.

Thankfully Johnson doesn’t “spout conspiracy theories accusing Jews or Israelis of carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks.” That would certainly be to his detriment and lead to an extended, much-prolonged apology tour–and of course as we all know, Jews don’t celebrate in parking lots while “documenting the event,” take out insurance policies on asbestos-filled buildings, or get themselves appointed to oversee commissions investigating what happened on a day that “changed the world” and that led to a series of wars against Israel’s enemies and a flood of refugees pouring into Europe. Jews don’t do any of these things! So repeat after me: It’s all just a coincidence…just a coincidence…just a coincidence…

The editorial also invokes the Nazis (you wouldn’t expect otherwise), calls Johnson’s termite comment “a particularly vile association,” and quotes one of his more contrite apologies:

“The language I used was not only unacceptable but it was hurtful,” he wrote in a message to constituents. “I deeply regret using this terrible metaphor. It was not only nonconstructive, it was wrong.”

I’m just guessing here, but I suspect a lot of people in Johnson’s congressional district are supporters of the Black Lives Matters movement, and of course a good many activists in that movement have openly expressed solidarity with Palestinians. Could that have anything to do with why Johnson accepted the invitation to speak at the event in Philadelphia?

A number of Johnson’s critics have attacked him not only for his comments about termites, but also for speaking at what they view as an anti-Semitic event. The event at which he spoke was not anti-Semitic, but it has been portrayed as such. “Progressive for Palestine: Is the US Ready to Rethink Policy on Israel?”–this was the title of the program. It was sponsored jointly by the American Friends Service Committee and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. The latter group should change its name to the “US Campaign to End the Israeli Disputation” or else prepare to go on being accused of anti-Semitism. At any rate, the main point I’m making is that not only were Johnson’s words criticized, but the program itself.

“Why was Johnson speaking to such an anti-Israel gathering at all?” asks the Atlanta Jewish Times editorial, in what is perhaps typical of some of the jabs. “That’s the question he must answer if wants to receive any more votes from the pro-Israel community.”

“Any more votes” from a group that makes up roughly two percent of the population is of course of scant consideration. The real question is whether Johnson will undergo savage media attacks in conjunction with buckets of money funneled to the campaign of some possible future opponent. Clearly the congressman has been warned.


For those who think it worth the effort, an online petition has been started to urge Johnson to “please keep speaking out about West Bank settlements.”

%d bloggers like this: