Epstein: Protected Because He Is a Spy? — A Backgrounder

Source

By IPA

July 14, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –   Vicky Ward, who tried to report on Jeffrey Epstein’s criminality as early as 2003, recently wrote that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta “cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had ‘been told’ to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. ‘I was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to leave it alone,’ he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)” See Ward’s recent pieces for The Daily Beast: “Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight” and “I Tried to Warn You About Sleazy Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.”

The Observer notes that Acosta was asked if Epstein had ties to intelligence agencies at his news conference Wednesday and gave a “a non-denial denial of an epic kind”: “I would [be] hesitant to take this reporting as fact” said Acosta. See “It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy — But Whose?

Ward charged on “Democracy Now” on Monday: “This is a man who definitely trades in the knowledge he has over the rich and famous, and uses it for leverage. He also introduces rich and famous people, like Bill Clinton, like Donald Trump, to girls.”

Epstein’s associate who allegedly helped connect him with his girl victims is Ghislaine Maxwell. She is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, the media mogul who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh alleged in his book The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy that Maxwell was tied to the Israeli Mossad. Hersh was sued for the allegation, but then received an apology.

Attorney General William Barr, who spent years at the CIA, stated he would recuse himself on the Epstein matter on Monday and then reversed himself on Tuesday. Barr helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal by approving the pardons of Elliott Abrams and other officials who were caught in illegal activity. In 1973, Epstein got his start as a math teacher thanks to Barr’s father, Donald Barr, who was headmaster of the elite Dalton School despite Epstein not having a college degree. His New York Times obituary notes that Donald Barr belonged to the Office of Strategic Services (better known as the OSS, the precursor to the CIA).

Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald has named two women — Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Sarah Ransome — who say that Epstein, when they were very young, directed them to have sex with Alan Dershowitz. Yet, the New York Times and other media continue to reference and even quote Dershowitz about the case without noting that he has been thus accused. Dershowitz was also one of Esptein’s lawyers when Acosta agreed to the non-prosecution agreement. The Times has recently noted that Dershowitz attacked the Herald‘s reporting in an attempt to deprive them of a Pulitzer. A piece by Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman quoted him saying that if you didn’t know Epstein and Trump in the 80s, “you were a nobody” — again, without noting that Dershowitz has so far been accused by two of Epstein’s victims.

Liaquat Ali Khan, the founder of Legal Scholar Academy, and a professor emeritus at the Washburn Law School interviewed Alan Dershowitz in 2004 and wrote that Dershowitz participated in the “Israeli assassination committee that reviews evidence before terrorists are targeted and killed.” Said Dershowitz: “I actually sat in on one of the committee meetings.”

This article was originally published by “IPA” –

Do you agree or disagree? Post your comment here

==See Also==

Netanyahu Trades Barbs With Barak Over Epstein Sex Trafficking Scandal

It Sure Looks Like Jeffrey Epstein Was a Spy—But Whose? Epstein was involved in intelligence work, of some kind, for someone—and it probably wasn’t American intelligence

Jeffrey Epstein built fortune by ‘blackmailing investors over sex parties,

Advertisements

Epstein 007

epstein007.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

It is possible that Epstein is just an ordinary paedophile, a slave to his own sick depravity. But this now seems unlikely, it leaves too many questions unresolved: why did Epstein build a sex trafficking network? Why did he seek the company of the world’s most influential characters? Why did he schlep all those royals, once and future presidents, Harvard professors and movie stars around the world in his ‘Lolita Express’? And then we get to the big question: how did he get away with it all?  Back in 2007, registered sex offender Epstein was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Instead he spent a mere thirteen months in a VIP prison.

The Daily Beast reported yesterday that when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of US labor secretary by the Trump administration’s transition team, Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein affair came under scrutiny. In that interview Acosta allegedly said,  “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

The more we look into this registered sex offender’s saga, the more it appears to have the characteristics of a gargantuan espionage operation. If so, then Epstein was running a multi-million intelligence apparatus set to accumulate dirt on some of the world’s most influential people. The walls of his Caribbean island palace were rigged with cameras, and likely for reasons other than his personal libidinal gratification. Epstein didn’t work alone. Press reports allege that Ghislaine Maxwell functioned as Epstein’s ‘madam.’

Multiple court filings reviewed and reported on by the Miami Herald reveal that lawyers for one of Epstein’s alleged victims claim that Maxwell helped traffic girls and women to powerful figures. The same documents report  that the alleged victims were lured into the sex ring by offers of modelling, fashion, and educational opportunities.

Ghislaine is the youngest child of the flamboyant Jewish media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances in November 1991.  Shortly before he died, a self-proclaimed former Mossad officer named Ari Ben-Menashe had approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell was a long-time agent for the Israeli intelligence service.

 I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome spectacle.

This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect American media tends to blame the Russians. Maybe Epstein was working for the Iranians, all indications are that the Trump’s administration is desperate for a pretext for a war with Iran. Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model of 007. If the espionage conspiracy theory is correct, then the Mossad and the CIA would be the natural suspects. Yet it is difficult to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal. It is almost impossible to imagine that Acosta, acting as the federal prosecutor, would take instructions from Israel. If it was the Mossad, they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. I assume that Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s former attorney, may be able to answer some of these questions. He seems to know the details:


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

Donate

Dershowitz on Europeans and Irrationality

May 31, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

dershpaint.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

Noam Chomsky wrote of  Dershowitz that he is a “remarkable liar” and “slanderer.” These problematic traits Chomsky noted of the former Harvard professor have proved useful. I might not have seen Dershowitz’ most recent recycled rant had he not mentioned my name and, as always, lied about me. 

In his article, Dershowitz claims that I deny that the “Holocaust is historically proved.”  Wrong! I argue that all historical narratives ought to be discussed freely and debated fearlessly. This treatment may not be applied to the Holocaust. The Holocaust has been minimised by its present status as legally protected religious dogma. If the Holocaust is the new religion, I defend my right to be agnostic.

According to Dershowitz, Atzmon “believes that Jews may well have killed Christian children to use their blood to bake Passover matzah.” If Dershowitz would just bother to actually read the work that he cites, he would learn that it wasn’t I who produced this sceptical recital of  the Jewish blood libel, it was Ariel Toaff, an Israeli professor at Bar Ilan who back in 2007 published a book titled “Blood Passover European Jews and ritual murder.”

Then Dershowitz arrives at his oft-repeated lie about me, Atzmon “thinks it’s ‘rational’ to burn down synagogues.”  I am taking this opportunity to address his insane accusation for the first time.  I would think that I shouldn’t need to inform Dershowitz that the words he ‘quotes’ have never appeared in any of my writings or my talks. I have never and would never incite violence nor have I ever been questioned, let alone charged by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the world about anything I have written or said.

Back in 2005, the Guardian published  a story about UK Jewish pressure groups that submitted a dossier of allegations of antisemitsm at the London SOAS University. The dossier included the following: “Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestinian activist and musician, who gave a talk to students this month, arguing: ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act’.”

At the time, Zionist Jewish groups attempted to file a complaint with the police but were shown the door as they 1. failed to produce any evidence, and 2. failed to grasp that my SOAS lecture presented a philosophical study of  rationality in conflicts in general and in anti Semitism in particular. All this I explained on the pages of the Guardian a week after the paper published the original erroneous article. As I wrote at the time, the quote attributed to me was both “inaccurate and taken out of context. By no possible interpretation did I justify any form of violence against Jews, Jewish interests or any innocent people.” I have never and would never incite violence nor have I ever been so much as questioned by any law enforcement authority anywhere in the world about anything I have written or said.

Funny, I would expect a professor at the Harvard Law School capable of grasping the distinction between rationality and ethics. I’ll explain. War crimes are most often also rational acts of war, however unethical. For example, dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, although likely in the running as the ultimate unethical act, was a ‘rational act’: it delivered a clear message to the Soviets and other interested parties by demonstrating the terrible destructive power of the newly born A- bomb. The stated intention behind the act was was an immediate and total surrender by the Japanese to end the war.

Writing of the contents of my actual lecture, I held my ground as I still do. I claimed that “since Israel presents itself as the ‘state of the Jewish people’, and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.”

Dershowitz’s  inability to distinguish between the concepts of ‘ethics’ and ‘rationality’ is at the core of his simplistic argument: His writing can seem removed from either intellectual integrity or academic consistency. It seems Dershowitz does not feel a need to adhere to the Athenian intellectual ethos. He is doing just fine in Jerusalem.

Dershowitz’s article is entitled, “Why it’s not surprising to see Jew-hatred increase in Western Europe.” The answer Dershowitz  provides is certainly banal. His claim: Europeans are basically a bunch of anti-Semites who have perpetuated the “myth” that the Holocaust was “the work of German Nazis aided perhaps by some [Eastern European] collaborators.”  Instead Dershowitz claims that the Holocaust  was a collective project perpetrated by “Nazi sympathizers and collaborators among the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Swiss, Belgians, Austrians, and other Europeans, both Western and Eastern.” Dershowitz, purportedly a legal ‘scholar’ fails to provide a single source for this claim.

Let’s assume charitably that Dershowitz fails to see he might be making things worse by calling a large percentage of Europeans murderers and/or Nazis and that in so doing he provokes opposition to himself and everything associated with his Zionist project.

Dershowitz must believe that opposition to Jewish politics and Zionist crimes has no cause, no rational basis. He writes, “the pervasive anti-Semitism and irrationally hateful anti-Zionism that has recently surfaced throughout western Europe toward Israel should surprise no one.”

Dershowitz is being either intentionally misleading or delusional. Apparently, he is convinced that any increase in opposition to Jews is related to Israel’s criminality. He complains that Leftists single out Israel for criticism. “Where are your demonstrations on behalf of the oppressed Tibetans, Georgians, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, or even Ukrainians?” he asks. Even the misguided professor should know that the Tibetan Lobby in Washington is not quite as powerful and influential as AIPAC. Dershowitz ought to find out how many Tory MPs are members of the “Conservative friends of Georgia.” I suppose I don’t need to add that the Syrians have yet to terrorise the British Labour Party and its leader on behalf of their leader Bashar Al-Assad.

Perhaps the opposition to Jewish pressure groups all over Europe is a reaction to some of the insanely aggressive and ugly politics openly perpetrated  by Jewish pressure groups and Israel’s lobbyists.

To accuse Labour members, for instance, of ‘irrationality’ and ‘racism’ for being upset when they learned that Shai Masot, an Israeli secret agent, was interfering with their party politics, is to deny rationality itself. Accusing the Poles, who see themselves as among the primary victims of WW2, of anti-Semitism for defying Israel’s demands for restitution verges on the absurd, especially considering the fact that Israel is a monument to a gross racist ethnic cleansing crime driven by the decision to plunder another people’s land.

After censuring ethically oriented and patriotically driven Europeans as ‘irrational’ for defying a foreign criminal country’s interference in their political affairs, Dershowitz sets the parameters for his own particular definition of objectivism. “Any objective person with an open mind, open eyes…must see the double standard being applied to the nation-state of the Jewish people. Many doing so are the grandchildren of those who lethally applied a double standard to the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. They must be shamed into looking themselves in the mirror of morality and acknowledging their own bigotry.”

I suggest that before Dershowitz ‘shames’ Europeans for seeing Israel for what it is, the ardent Zionist caricature might have to accept that crimes committed by a state that calls itself ‘The Jewish State’ and decorates its tanks and airplanes with Jewish symbols may inflict shame on the entire Jewish people. Certainly many Jews are genuinely troubled and distressed by this fact. Before Dershowitz condemns Europeans, Dershowitz should consider performing the elementary intellectual exercise of examining his argument in a wider context: He should look into the possibility that the Jewish past is an ongoing disaster for a reason. If Dershowitz is interested in learning about rationality, looking introspectively for the logos that has made Jewish history into a chain of pogroms would be a great project for his retirement.


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

Donate

To Rid the World of Antisemitism

November 29, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 CNN: “42% of Hungarians think Jews have too much influence in finance and business across the world.”

CNN: “42% of Hungarians think Jews have too much influence in finance and business across the world.”

On Tuesday, CNN published a survey of anti-Semitism in Europe. The poll revealed that  “more than a quarter of Europeans surveyed believe Jews have too much influence in business and finance. One in five say they have too much influence in media and politics. In some countries the numbers are often higher: 42% of Hungarians think Jews have too much influence in finance and business across the world.”

In my recent book, Being in Time, I argue that Jewish power is the power to silence opposition to Jewish Power.  CNN’s poll supports my thesis.  That some Jews enjoy significant influence in politics, culture and finance is not a matter of ‘opinion,’ it is an established fact as reports in the Jewish and mainstream media reveal on a daily basis. Jewish prominence in certain areas is a frequent boast of renowned Jews such as Alan Dershowitz. Yet only one of five Europeans is brave enough to admit that in the open.

CNN’s poll suggests that 80% of those who dwell in Europe are either lying, blind or, most likely, terrified of the truth. They have good reason to be scared. They have seen the onslaught of revenge from Jewish institutions against artists, writers, comedians, politicians, activists and academics including: Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, Richard Falk, Alison Weir, Norman Finkelstein, David Icke, Jeremy Corbyn and yours truly. Telling the truth about Israel, Zionism or expressing any form of criticism of Jewish politics subjects the teller to an immediate and colossal smear campaign. The CNN poll suggests that 80% of Europeans seem to have accepted the present tyrannical and authoritarian conditions. But this isn’t exactly a stable situation. It is only a question of time before the genie pops out of the bottle as has happened far too many times in the past.

By now it has become clear that the more Jewish institutions  ‘fight’ anti-Semitism, the more the opposition is directed against Jewish politics and Israeli brutality.  The same applies to the holocaust; the caravans of Jewish youngsters visiting Poland didn’t kill anti-Semitism nor did it revive the memory of the holocaust. In Poland, according to the CNN poll, “50% of people think that Jews use the Holocaust to advance their position.”

 What can Jews do about anti-Semitism? Simple– look in the mirror– introspect.

If Jews want to be loved or simply just ignored, then :(1) maybe The European Jewish Congress  should seriously consider the possible consequences of  its ‘demand’ that “the Bible and the Koran use ‘trigger warnings’ to highlight anti-Semitic passages,”  (2) The French Jewish organisations might want to reconsider their  relentless campaign to decimate the artistic career of France’s most popular comedian, or (3) It might not be a great idea for Britain’s Jewish institutions to interfere with British national politics by smearing  Britain’s  number one anti racist.

If Jews want to rid the world of antisemitism, Jewish bodies should carefully self reflect and take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming the Goyim…

Turning Molehills into Mountains

September 24, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 John Cheney-Lippold, told his student that he wouldn’t write a letter of recommendation for her to study in Israel.

John Cheney-Lippold, told his student that he wouldn’t write a letter of recommendation for her to study in Israel.

Earlier this month, University of Michigan professor John Cheney-Lippold, told his student, Abigail Ingber, that he would not write a letter of recommendation for her to study in Israel.  In declining to write the recommendation, he wrote in part, “As you may know, many university departments have pledged an academic boycott against Israel in support of Palestinians living in Palestine.This boycott includes writing letters of recommendation for students planning to study there.”

This incident has, predictably, led to wild accusations of anti Semitism. First, it is worth noting that it is unlikely that this refusal caused Ms Ingber any harm. Other professors can write recommendations and the publicity around this incident will not harm her application to be a visiting student at Tel Aviv University.

Without reaching any of the other issues raised, I tend to think that Professor Cheney-Lippold’s refusal was wrong. He is an employee of a public university and part of his job is writing recommendations for deserving students. However deeply the professor supports the BDS movement, this may not excuse his failure to fulfill his obligations as a professor.

The University made a similar point. “It is disappointing that a faculty member would allow their personal political beliefs to limit the support they are willing to otherwise provide for our students.”

But there is something in the psyche of Israel’s supporters that refuses to allow a simple solution (even if it is in their favor) or to miss a chance to rail against perceived anti Semitism and unfair treatment of Israel.

Club Z’, a Zionist facebook page posted Cheney-Lippold’s  explanation for not writing the recommendation and stated through its executive director, Masha Merkulova, that the refusal was anti-Semitic as it came “solely because her chosen destination is Israel.”  But Israel is neither a race nor a religion and by conflating the boycott of Israel and Jews, Ms Merkula is doing what the IHRA definition of antisemitism forbids. Or is that definition only applicable to those accused of anti Semitism and not the accusers?

Cheney-Lippold responded he did not regret his decision. “I do not regret declining to write the letter, precisely because I am boycotting injustice… Israeli universities are complicit institutions — they develop weapons systems and military training. Cheney-Lippold denied charges that his refusal was anti Semitic, stating that he is boycotting Israeli institutions, not Jewish students.

A group of 58 religious, civil rights and education advocacy groups, most of them notably Zionist, wrote to the University’s president,  “We … call on you to make a public statement specifically stating that this behavior will not be permitted, affirming your commitment to ensuring that no U-M student will be impeded from studying about or in Israel, and detailing the steps you will take to ensure that faculty do not implement an academic boycott of Israel at the University of Michigan.”  The letter’s demands go far beyond the facts of this case. It is not clear why a professor, if he or she otherwise fulfills his obligations, is not free to boycott Israel.

The histrionics were abetted by former law professor Alan Dershowitz who weighed in with wild accusations: “imagine a white university professor telling a highly qualified African-American student that he refused to recommend her for a year-abroad program to an African country because he disapproved of the way that country treated its white minority. That professor would be ostracized, boycotted, reprimanded, disciplined or fired.”

This example of a ‘white’ professor supporting a white minority is inapplicable. Cheney-Lippold is not Palestinian, his convictions are ethical, not tribal. Secondly, are African American students really in the habit of crying ‘racist’ at any criticism of Africa? And lastly, what African country locks millions of white people in open air prisons? Are there any African states that deploy snipers against unarmed white protestors?

Dershowitz continues his absurd tale. “Many who support singling out Israel will actively encourage academic contacts with Russian, Cuban, Saudi, Venezuelan, Chinese, Belarusian and Palestinian universities, despite the horrid human-rights records of these undemocratic countries and the discriminatory policies of their universities.” Where is the evidence for this bold statement?

Dershowitz adds another outrageous accusation based on no facts. “This hypocritical professor probably would not hesitate to recommend his student to universities that discriminate against gay and transgender, women, Jewish or Christian students.”

Finally, Dershowitz garners the evidence of  his imaginings to make his point. “Academic freedom may permit a professor to advocate a boycott against Israeli (or any other) universities, misguided as that may be. But it does not permit a professor to actually discriminate against one of his students based on invidious factors. A teacher must treat all of his students fairly and equally, without regard to their religious, political or ethnic views or identities…academic freedom … does not protect him from discriminating against a student who has different views.”

Professor Cheney Lippold did not discriminate against the student for her ethnicity or beliefs, rather he refused to write a  recommendation because, as he said, he believed that doing so would support Israel and violate his own commitment to BDS.

It seems that the relatively minor incident of a refusal to write a letter of recommendation based on the boycott of Israel has become the basis of hysterical accusations of anti Semitism. It may be that such extreme reactions serve to inure the public to true anti Semitism.

Jews and Gentiles

September 10, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Family_Quarrels_or_The_Jew_and_the_Gentile-1113x640.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Early Zionism was a significant and glorious moment in Jewish history; a moment of dramatic epiphany fueled by self-loathing. The early Zionists promised to save the Jews from the Jew and to liberate the Jew from the Jews. They were disgusted by the Diaspora non-proletarian urban Jewish culture which they regarded as parasitic.  They promised to bond the new Hebrews with labour and soil. They were convinced that they could transform what they saw as a greedy capitalist into a new ‘Israelite hard working peasant.’  They believed that they could make the ‘international cosmopolitan’ into a nationalist patriot, they believed that they knew how to convert Soros into a kibbutznik: they were certain that it was within their capacity to make Alan Dershowitz into a Uri Avneri and Abe Foxman into a peacenik. They promised to make Jews into people like all other people while failing to realize that no other people really want to resemble others.

Zionism has been successful on many fronts. It managed to form a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Jewish state is a wealthy ghetto and one which is internationally supported. But Israel is a state like no other. It is institutionally racist and murderous.  It begs for American taxpayers’ money despite being filthy rich.  Sadly, Zionism didn’t solve the Jewish problem, it just moved it to a new location. More significantly, not only did Zionism fail to heal the Jews as it had promised to do, it actually amplified the symptoms it had vowed to obliterate.

Accordingly, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitsm should be regarded as a Zionist admission that the task of making Jews people like all other people has been a complete failure. No other people have so intensely and institutionally engaged in the suppression of other people’s freedom of speech. Jewish and Zionist bodies work openly and in concert to silence every possible criticism of their state. The real reason for the fight to make the IHRA definition law is that the Zionist position on antisemitism is indefensible.  If the Jews need a special definition of hatred against them (as opposed to a definition of hatred that includes hatred of any people based on race or religion) it proves that, at least in the eyes of the Zionists who push for the definition, Jews are somehow different.

In addition, and for quite some time, history laws and regimes of correctness have been employed to block our access to the Jewish past. This is paradoxical given the fact that the Zionist project is a historically driven adventure: while Zionists often claim their right to self determination on their so-called ‘historical land,’ no one else is allowed to critically examine the Jewish historical past. The Jewish past is, instead, what Jews consider to be their past at a given moment, and as the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand suggests, this so called ‘narrative’ is often an ‘invention.’  No one is permitted to look into the validity of claims made about Jewish participation  in the slave trade. Gentiles are not entitled to look into the role of Jewish Bolsheviks in some colossal communist crimes. The Nakba is legally isolated by walls of Israeli legislation. And it is axiomatic that no one may freely engage in critical thinking on any topic that is even tangentially related to the holocaust. For my suggestion that Jews should self reflect and attempt to understand what it was that led to the animosity against them in the 1930s, I am castigated by some Jewish ethnic activists as a holocaust denier.

French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard taught us that history claims to tell us ‘what happened’ but in most cases it actually does the opposite: it is there to conceal our collective shame. To suppress their shame, Americans build holocaust museums in every American city rather than explore their own slave holding past. Rather than deal with their dark imperial history, the Brits allocated a large part of their Imperial Wars Museum to a Holocaust Memorial. Both American and British holocaust museums fail to address the shameful fact that both countries largely blocked their gates to European Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. According to Lyotard, the role of the true historian is to unveil the shame, removing layer after layer of suppression. This painful process is where history matures into ethical awareness. And then, there is no examination of responsibility for historical wrongs in the Zionist narrative, for the notion of shame, that instigated the Early Zionist ideology, is totally foreign to Zionist culture and politics.

Israel not only couldn’t be bothered to build a Nakba museum: it does not even acknowledge the Nakba. Zionists didn’t express remorse that their Jewish state deployed snipers to hunt Palestinian protestors, killing hundreds and wounding thousands of them.

Neither Zionists nor Israelis feel the need to find excuses for the fact that their laws are racist: Palestinian Israeli citizens are 7th class citizens and the rest of the Palestinians who live in Israeli controlled territories are locked up in open air prisons. Zionism doesn’t have to deal with shame because shame involves uncanny introspection, it entails humility, ordinariness.   Unlike the Americans and the Brits who made other people’s suffering into their empathy pets, the Zionists, the Israelis and Jews in general are clearly happy to celebrate the primacy of Jewish suffering while making sure everyone else adheres to this principle.  Zionism skillfully put into play the means that suppress criticism all together. But by doing so, Zionism essentially blinded its followers to its own crimes, and it put an end to the dream to become people like all other people.

Although Zionism was an apparatus invented to fix the Jews, to make them ordinary, it had the opposite effect. It made it impossible for its followers to integrate into the rest of the nations as a people amongst people. While Zionism was born to obliterate choseness, as it was practiced it was hijacked by the most problematic form of  Jewish exceptionalism. Interestingly enough, today, just ahead of the Jewish new year, Haaretzrevealed that 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosen. I guess the rest see themselves as exceptional.

 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

If some Zionists out there are still committed to the original Zionist dream, then owning the shame that is attached to the Zionist sin is probably the way forward. Because as things stand at the moment, the only public figure who insists upon seeing Jews as people like all other people and actually act upon it is, believe it or not, Jeremy Corbyn.

Tomorrow (9-11) in Manhattan I will dig into the history of Zionism from Herzl to Bibi:

From Herzl To Bibi Poster.jpg

 

Jews, Logic and Corbyn

August 18, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

corbyn Algebra.jpg

By Gilad Atzmomn

According to the Transitive Axiom if A=B and B=C then A = C (If any two items are equal to the same third item then the two are equal to each other).

I mention the Transitive Axiom because it is a straightforward way to understand that if Corbyn (A) = existential threat to Jews (B) and Hitler (C) = existential threat to Jews (B) then Corbyn (A) = Hitler (C).

Every day British Jewish community leaders tell us that it will pose an “existential threat” to British Jews if Corbyn ends up in 10 Downing Street. It seems some British Jewish leaders are either delusional or stupid enough to believe that Corbyn and Hitler are one and the same. A few weeks ago, the three main British Jewish papers joined forces to deliver this humorous message in a single voice: ‘Corbyn poses an existential threat to our community.’

Today, Jonathan Goldstein, head of the Jewish Leadership Council repeated the same message in an interview with the Times of Israel.

“We are nervous about this man (Corbyn) becoming prime minister. We see the possibility of a Labour government led by this group as an existential threat to our community. These are unprecedented times.”

Jewish religion and culture are saturated with purported ‘existential threats.’ Jews are advised to “remember Amalek” the archetypical Biblical existential threat. Purim, the most joyous Jewish holiday, is a celebration of the Jewish victory over Haman, who was another existential threat. The holiday commemorates the killing  of Haman as well as the massacre of 75.000 of his associates. Even Jesus is perceived by some rabbinical sects as not only an arch enemy but an existential threat as well. Yeshu, the Hebrew name used for Christ , is an acronym for the formula Y’mach Sh’mo V’Zichro meaning ‘may his name and memory be obliterated’– a term reserved for the bitterest enemies of the Jews (Hitler, Amalek, etc.).  A few years back, yours truly was an existential threat in the eyes of the delusional Alan Dershowitz  

I hope that the Zionist campaign against Corbyn is not going to mature into a jubilant Jewish holiday or, God forbid, a Purim spirited lethal attack on his many supporters. I point at the absurdity of the Zionist zeal because judging by the language used by British Jewish community leaders, they see Corbyn as up there with Amalek, Haman and Hitler.

This is probably the right time to remind ourselves and British Jewish leaders of another fundamental mathematical axiom, namely the Symmetric one — If a = b then b = a.

If Corbyn = Hitler then we can assume that Hitler = Corbyn.  This could be a dangerous path for British Jews, especially considering the fact that despite the relentless Zionist campaign against him, Corbyn is still leading in the polls. In other words, if Hitler = Corbyn and Corbyn is supported by a majority of Brits who see him as an anti-racist and a humanist, some Brits may begin to  entertain the possibility that maybe Hitler was only just as bad as Corbyn. I guess that this is what many Jews regard a ‘holocaust denial.’ But, as things stand, they have only themselves to blame — it is the British Jewish leadership that introduced this absurd equation and has foolishly continued to push it on a daily basis.

%d bloggers like this: