Palestine, Syria, ID Politics and the West

July 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Interview by Dina Y. Sulaeman – Indonesia Center for Middle East Studies

http://ic-mes.org/politics/interview-with-gilad-atzmon/

Dina: In your book, “The Wandering Who”, you wrote extensively  about Jewish identity politics. Is ‘identity politics’ special for Jews?

Gilad: No, not at all. In my new book, ‘Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,’ I present a universal approach to identity politics.

Jewish identity politics is a model for identity politics in general. In the west, we have witnessed the evolution of gay ID politics, black ID politics and so on. ID politics operates to teach people to speak and think ‘as a’;  ‘as a black’, ‘as a lesbian’, ‘as a feminist’, ‘as a Muslim’, etc. It is an attempt to break apart all the established and traditional social structures. Why? Because, the Jewish elite is fearful of the old structures, they tend to believe that anti-Semitism is rooted in the established edifice and in working people being united. The Frankfurt School and thinkers like Wilhelm Reich managed to revolutionise society– in the name of ‘progress,’ we are now divided and detached from our ‘reactionary’ roots.  But it is devastating that the left has been united against working people forging a cohesive identity… this is very strange because the left is supposed to look after the working people and unite and inspire them to action. The left in the west is disturbed by the fact that the working people always vote for the flag, for the right, for the nationalist, for Trump, for Hitler and so on. Accordingly, modern ID politics is a project that developed out of this unique intellectual and political bond between the left and Jewish intelligencia. The Jews are better at ID politics than any other group for an obvious reason. For the  gay, the black, the Muslim, the feminist or the lesbian, ID politicsis a new thing.  Jews have been doing itfor 3000 years — Jewish culture is identity politics.

It would be reasonable to argue that ID politics is an attempt to Jewify (as opposed to Judify)  the entire social order. It has been a project that has caused some devastating cultural, social and political impacts.

Dina: So, there are differences between the  ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaic’ thing.  In your book, you said that the problem, in Palestine for instance,  isJewishness rather than  Zionism. Can you explain it?

Gilad: It is confusing. Jewishness is the belief that the Jews are somehow special, chosen, privileged and should enjoy and celebrate their privilege. Not all Jews subscribe to this idea, but many of them do. Even the Jewish anti-Zionist will say, ‘listen to us, we can say something that you (goyim, gentiles) can’t, we as the Jews in the movement,  give you a ‘kosher stamp.’ They are  basically claiming that ‘we are privileged’.  Even Jewish anti-Zionists subscribe to hard corechoseness. Norman Finkelstein, whom I admire intellectually, used  to say, I can say it because my mother was in a concentration camp.  What about you Dina? Your mother wasn’t in Auschwitz, can you still think or express your thoughts ? Or support Palestine? Or do you have to send your mother to Auschwitz before you make a judgment on Israel or other aspects of Jewish power? Choseness is, unfortunately, embedded in Jewish thinking.

Zionism is just one symptom of Jewish choseness. Interestingly enough, and this is my first time I have said this in an interview, some people, including some of my best friends, say that ‘Judaism was hijacked by Zionism.’  I say NO.  It is the other way around — Zionism was hijacked by Jewishness and eventually Judaism.

Zionism was initially an anti-Jewish movement. Zionism started in  the late 19th century. It proclaimed that Diaspora Jews were an ugly parasitic identity; they didn’twork, they didn’tfarm, they were traders and bankers, capitalists, usurers, exploiters and so on, ..but this wasn’t entirely their fault. It had happened because Jews  didn’t  have a land of their own. “Once we settle in Palestine, all of that will change.”  And, indeed, they went to Palestine and for two weeks they worked on the land and built factories.  But then they found out that the Palestinians were cheaper [labour] and they all became Jews again.   It is amazing that Zionism was a secular movement that promised to ‘civilise’ the Jew. But then ideological Zionism was hijacked by Jewish exceptionalism and later by Judaic choseness. While early Zionism operated to defeat choseness, Israel and Zionism have little to offer but chosenism.

There is a problem with certain interpretations of Judaism. I do accept that some  orthodox  interpretations of Judaism may defy supremacy. But I’ve yet to come across any Judaic perception that I can accept as ethicalor universal. Judaism is not a universal precept:

  1. It’s tribal. It does not refer to  “us” as humanity, it is, instead, all about  “us” the Jews.
  2. There are no ethics in Judaism. In Islam or Christianity, you are expected to  take action based upon belief such as’ jihad,’ you purify yourself. In Judaism‘ethics’ is replaced by ‘commandments’ and ‘mitzvoth’, you follow rules to do this and that, and rules not to do that and this. You are not supposed to make an independent judgement. They tell you, “don’t kill, don’t steal.” Human beings do not need to to be told not to kill, theyknow it’s ethically wrong. In Jerusalem, regulations replace ethics!

Dina: but then when we say that the root of the Palestinian problem is Jewishness (not Zionism), they will call us anti-Jew or anti Semites.

Gilad: It is not nice, but this is a tactic that has been used to silence the discussion. However, we are not talking here about individual  people, we are referring to ideology and we are supposed to be able to criticize ideology. But, as we can see, some Jews don’t want us to do that, and for an obvious reason!

Do you have identity politics here in Indonesia?

Dina: well..yes… We have some Muslim groups that keep saying that the muslims are oppressed by the Chinese and the Christians; they accused the government of being pro-Chinese/Christian.

Gilad: I’m not familiar with Indonesian society and politics, but you just confirmedwhat I have been saying –identity politics is always used as an attempt to weaken the hegemonical structure.

As a nation, we enjoy  the ability to mobilise  as one people. It doesn’t matter if you are Muslim, Christian, or Hindu, we are together, caring for each other, because we share the same land, and our most important values as a country are health, education, and work (production, manufacturing). If I speak instead ‘as a Muslim,’  ‘as a Christian,’  ‘as a woman,’  ‘as a lesbian,’ I contribute to the breaking of society into sectors. The most interesting thing about the sectorial break is that each sector is a cosmopolitan one. If I define myself as a Muslim identitarian then the border of my identity is not the physical border of Indonesia, it extends to Malaysia, the Middle East, the Balkans and even Europe and the United States. If I define myself as a gay, the border also transcends  beyond my country. This is exactly how Jewish identity operates. Jews, as we know,  are not attached to any piece of geography, it is a cosmopolitan  identity.  Zionism initially attempted to defy Jewish cosmopolitanism.

In America, for instance, I speak about the patriots vs. the identitarians, the patriots who see themselves primarily as Americans. So you can be black, you can be gay, you can be a Jew, but you say: I’m an American who happens to be black, I’m an American who happens to be a Jew, I’m an American who happens to be gay. But the identitarians  see themselves primarily as sectarians:   I’m a gay who lives in America, I’m a Muslim who lives in America.  And it’s a very big difference. Because if you are primarily gay, your primary interest is in promoting gay rights and gay interests, for example, to have a dedicated hospital for AIDS. If you are black, you want to see special budget allocations for black people and their needs. But for patriots, whoever they are, the most important thing is a new factory so that we, as a collective (gays, black, Jews, women etc) , have a good reason to wake up in the morning and go to work.

Dina: So in your view, nationalism is very important, right?

Gilad: If global capitalism is a problem, and I thinkit is, then, national socialism may be the answer. What I mean by national socialism is localism combined with equality. I don’t mean racism, I’m anti racist. I am also opposed to tyranny. I would say that my vision of national socialism is similar to that of George Orwell. It is patriotic yet humanitarian: anti racist and anti tyrannical.

Dina: Now I want to talk about Syria with you. Do you think the Syrian conflict distracted public opinion towards Palestine?

Gilad: It did, this is a very clear observation. The crisis in Syria is a hideousdisaster and it has definitely distracted attention from Palestine, and who benefits from that? Israel, of course. This is why it shouldn’t surprise us that the major players in the creation of this crisis were Israel and its supportive Jewish Lobbies. And it shouldn’t surprise us that Israel and the Jewish Lobby are now changing sides. In the beginning they supported Al Nusra, now they seem to be with the Russians. Turkey has switched sides too, they still don’t like Assad but they prefer Assad to having a Kurdish State on their eastern border . So we are dealing with a level of deadly global opportunism. Many within the the pro-Palestinian activist network  are also changing sides, they were anti Assad initially and are now pro Assad.

The Palestinian leaderswere not very politic here. The Assad regime was very supportive of Palestine. Hafez, Bashar’s father, fully supported Hamas. It was devastating  to see how quickly Hamas decided to oppose Assad. I understand why it happened… Qatar, the Saudis, the Sunni alliance, the Muslim Brotherhood. I don’t like to criticize Palestinians and their politics  but they were not very clever here.

Dina: ok last question, what is the future of Palestine?

Gilad: I don’t think that we are moving toward a peace negotiation, a peace plan or an orchestrated reconciliation. When people talk about two states, what they really mean is two Jewish states. But I believe that within the next 20-30 years we will see a Palestinian majority on the land. It’s a just a matter of time. Here I agree with Abbas. Everybody likes to hate Abbas. But Abbas understands that time is on the side of the Palestinians. For Abbas demography is the one and only Palestinian bomb.

Dina: So you don’t agree with jihad?

Gilad: I didn’t say I am against jihad. If Palestinians resist, they will always get my support. They live in hell and I will always support them. This is my role. But I’m not in position to advocate a solution or push a political or military mantra. I see myself as a (Hebrew speaking) Palestinian,  but I don’t live there. I cannot urge people to get themselves killed while I live comfortably in London. I cannot tell them to sit and wait either. It is not my role. My job as an intellectual is to try to explain what is happening. Abbas says that if we engage in active war, they [the Israelis] will throw us all out, they will kill us, they have no mercy, and he is absolutely right. So, we just have to sit and wait;  this land will be Palestine from river to the sea.

Dina: do you refer to  demography?

Gilad:  Absolutely!

From the Heart to the Mouth: Jesus’ Views on the Talmud

Perversity, Stupidity and Blind Guides

As Al-Aqsa descends into chaos…

By Richard Edmondson

I came across the above picture several days ago. It is of Nur Hamdan, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who lost his eye earlier this month after being shot by Israeli police. According to news reports, Nur was standing on the balcony of his East Jerusalem home along with his mother and a cousin when he was hit by a “sponge-tipped bullet.”

Reportedly he suffered eye socket fractures and other facial injuries. According to Israeli authorities, clashes were occurring in the area, but Nur’s family says he was not involved in any of this. When his mom saw the Israeli police presence in the street below, she ordered the children to come inside from the balcony, and reportedly it was just as Nur stood up that he was hit by the projectile.

You can go here and here to access news articles on the incident. (All of this took place just a few days before the shooting of two Israeli police officers and subsequent outbreak of violence at the Temple Mount.) One of the reports says the use of sponge-tipped bullets for crowd control began three years ago, but now the Israelis have adopted a new version that is “twice as hard and heavy and their potential to cause injury is much greater.” Official police regulations stipulate the bullet should not be fired at children, and if used against adults only the legs should be targeted. Apparently, however, this regulation was disregarded in Nur’s case.

It may have been disregarded other times as well. One of the reports linked to above is from The Independent, whose article notes that, “as of January 2016, 15 people have lost an eye in similar shootings involving Israeli forces, including a six-year-old boy.”

It seems almost as if Israel’s behavior grows progressively worse the more global public opinion galvanizes against it. Perhaps there is a perverse sort of logic in this. Just a guess here, but maybe the thinking goes something along the lines of: “Well people are going to hate us anyway, so we might as well do whatever the f-ck we want.” Whether this is the new credo or not, certainly perversity and perverse thinking–quite a bit of it actually–can be found in the Talmud, one of Judaism’s “holy” books. For instance, a passage from the Moed Kattan reads, “If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.” If you think about it, there is a perverse sort of “logic” to it, I suppose.

The Talmud also has passages concerning non-Jews, such as this one from the Sanhedrin, “What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep,” and even those applying to non-Jewish children, such as this gem–“All gentile children are animals”–from the Talmudic tractate known as the Yebamoth.

The above quotes are taken from an article by Michael Hoffman, who is the author of Judaism’s Strange Gods and is widely regarded as one of the preeminent non-Jewish authorities on the Talmud. You might want to go and check it out. There are lots of other quotes from the Talmud as well.

So is there a connection between the perverse ideology found in the Talmud and the perverse behavior we see from Israelis? I don’t have a definitive answer to that, but my guess is probably there are Israeli rabbis who point to various passages in the Talmud in order to justify things such as settlement expansion, demolition of Palestinian homes, and–well, who knows?–maybe even shooting children in the eye. All this is not to say that there aren’t some good and decent Israeli Jews who oppose their government’s policies.  I suspect, however, these are not the ones who spend their days reading and studying the Talmud.

Jesus had a few thoughts on this subject as well, although I should qualify the title I’ve given to this post–“From the Heart to the Mouth: Jesus’ Views on the Talmud”–by mentioning that the Talmud did not exist in Jesus’ day. Ah, but the oral law did. And the oral law became the basis for a good portion of the Talmud, which began to be written down starting in about 200 A.D.

So what exactly was this oral law that existed in Jesus’ time? Well, it consisted of “interpretations” of the law of Moses, along with some outright additions that supposedly had been omitted from the five books of the Torah, presumably due to oversight, all of this as envisaged, or imagined, by rabbis and “sages” of the day–a group of people Jesus referred to (almost always derisively) as “teachers of the law.”

A clear picture of the contempt Jesus felt for their perverse edicts can be found in the fifteenth chapter of Matthew (a parallel passage can also be found in Mark 7). The chapter starts out with a group of Pharisees and teachers of the law coming to Jesus and demanding to know why he doesn’t insist on his disciples washing their hands before they eat. Here is his reply to them, starting in verse 3 and running through verse 9:

“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
Their teachings are but rules taught by men.’”

Jews were required in those days to make sacrifices at the Temple as well as pay a yearly Temple tax. Apparently the teachers of the law felt it more urgent and of greater priority for members of the public to fulfill these obligations  than obligations toward their own parents. And Jesus called them out on it.

The quote Jesus supplies from Isaiah is from chapter 29, verse 13. Interestingly, the entire 29th chapter of Isaiah is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. Verse 14, immediately following the one quoted by Jesus, reads:

Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish; the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.

Isaiah seems to have been envisioning a time in which the intelligent and wise, the “sages” if you will, would sink into a morass of perversity and stupidity. Again, keep in mind the Talmud began to be written down starting in about 200 A.D.

Another interesting aspect to all this is that Isaiah refers to the city of Jerusalem not by its common name–Jerusalem–but by the name “Ariel.” The Hebrew word “ariel” means “lion of God,” but because of Isaiah’s use of it in this context, it has also come to be recognized as an alternate name for Jerusalem. Thus, Ariel Sharon, the former prime minister of Israel who spent the last eight years of his life in a vegetative state, could also be known as “Lion of God Sharon” or “Jerusalem Sharon.” Either would be technically correct.

Here is what Isaiah says about the city of Ariel/Jerusalem:

Woe to you Ariel, Ariel,
the city where David settled!
Add year to year
and let your cycle of festivals go on.
Yet I will besiege Ariel;
she will mourn and lament,
she will be to me like an altar hearth.

The above are the first two verses of chapter 29. A bit of explanation regarding the term “altar hearth” is warranted. In ancient Israel, particularly in the homes of the poor, a “hearth” consisted of a depression in the ground in which a fire was kindled. An “altar” was a place where sacrifices were made–and hence where blood was shed. So Jerusalem, Isaiah in effect was saying, will become like “a depression in the ground where blood is shed.” Also take note: the Hebrew word for “ariel”, spelled אךיאל ,   is very similar to the Hebrew word for “altar”, spelled  אךאיל ,  and both are pronounced ar-ee-ale’ . In other words, Isaiah was making a play on words! And a rather ironic one at that: the “lion of God” was going to become nothing more than a “depression in the ground where blood is shed.”

But to return to the Gospel of Matthew. The verbal dressing down of the teachers of the law is followed, in verses 10 and 11, with:

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”

It is while Jesus is addressing the crowd that the Pharisees and teachers of the law stalk away, apparently incensed at being called hypocrites and having the words of Isaiah thrown up in their faces. This in fact is remarked upon by one of the disciples. “Did you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” he entreats Jesus with a sense of alarm. The latter replies:

“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

It is at this point that the ever-curious and ever-quizzical Peter asks for an elaboration–what exactly did Jesus mean about words coming out of a person’s mouth making the person unclean? The reply is well worth recording here:

“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’”

In his article, Hoffman says that most religious Orthodox Jews ascribe greater authority to the Talmud than to the Old Testament, and he supplies a quote from a Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph, who insists that without the Talmud, Jews would be unable to grasp the meaning of the Old Testament.

“God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture,” ben Joseph asserts. “The Sages also made enactments of their own…anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”

In the video below we see a couple of erudite Israeli “sages” offering up their views on Gentiles.

On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the level of perversity and stupidity you see in this video? Isn’t it ironic–that we observe these two teachers of the law referring to Gentiles as animals, insisting that they exist to serve only Jews, while at the same time congratulating themselves on being the most “humane” creatures on the planet? Is it any wonder Jesus referred to them as hypocrites and blind guides?

One of the foremost Talmudic scholars of the 20th century was a US rabbi by the name of Joseph D. Soloveitchik, who served at Yeshiva University in New York and is said to have ordained some 2,000 rabbis over the course of his career. Soloveitchik reportedly had a close relationship with Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and is also said to have been highly admired by Rabbi Meir Kahane. Schneerson believed that two types of souls exist: a Jewish soul and a non-Jewish soul. The latter, he held, comes from “satanic spheres,” but the Jewish soul “stems from holiness.”* As for Kahane, he was founder of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) and was convicted of domestic terrorism in the US. All three men–Soloveitchik, Schneerson, and Kahane–were avid supporters of Israel.

Among the JDL’s more notable accomplishments were acts of violence aimed against Russian targets in the US as well as bomb threats called in over the 1970 TV sitcom Bridget Loves Bernie (the show portrayed an interfaith marriage between a Catholic woman and a Jewish man and was cancelled after only one season despite having high ratings).

Hoffman, who describes the Talmud as “hate literature,” says the body of writing “has caused untold suffering throughout history and now, in occupied Palestine, it is used as a justification for the mass murder of Palestinian civilians.”

Interestingly, Isaiah evinced what could possibly be construed as a premonition of the coming of the the oral law. In his chapter 29, verse 4, he writes:

Brought low, you will speak from the ground;
your speech shall mumble out of the dust
Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth;
Out of the dust your speech will whisper.

The prophet died in about 681 B.C. Legend has it that he was sawed in half. Mannasseh, one of the more evil rulers of the ancient Israelites, was king of Judah at the time. Roughly a hundred years after his death, Jerusalem, in 586 B.C., was sacked by the Babylonians.

Christ was crucified in 30 A.D. Forty years later, in 70 A.D. Jerusalem was sacked again, this time by the Romans.

Does history repeat itself? With the plethora of blind guides leading the blind that we see today in Israel, the answer to that is probably going to be yes.

* as quoted in Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

Is Michael Foster a Chameleon?

June 13, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

The utterly repellent Michael Foster who has spent the last 2 years waging a relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn has now apparently become a Corbyn supporter.  Foster now admits that he was “wrong on Corbyn.”  The Jewish labour donor used the notorious Zionist Times of Israel to “tip his hat to the leader’s success”

In a spectacular admission that portrays total cultural and political  detachment Foster says,  “I was wrong on that his brand of leadership and socialism would not appeal.”

The samecharacter who a year ago professed that he despised Corbyn  and labelled his supporters “Sturm Abteilung” (Nazi stormtroopers) has convenientlychanged his spots.

However, don’t let the sly Foster mislead you. Foster is not a chameleon. He didn’t transform into a British patriot who cares for the working people or the resurrection of the NHS. Foster is a Jewish ethnic campaigner. Foster is interested in only one thing: Jewish tribal interests.    

“To the future, Jeremy (note the shift to personal language) from my point of view has two things that matter to me, to deal with. He must continue to stamp out any sign of anti Semitism within Labour; and he must on that score make i think more of an effort, both private and public to meet with, and meet the legitimate fears of, the Jewish Community.”

And now the warning: “Jeremy’s legitimacy as a leader of all factions within Britain will in part depend on him achieving this. He can make the Jews of Britain feel safe, without in any way abandoning his strong and righteous belief in the need for a self governing and free, Palestinian homeland.”

Can he? Will the Fosters of this world let Corbyn be? Will they let him support Palestine and denounce Israeli brutality? Seemingly Foster and the Jewish lobby have yet to read the picture. Corbyn’s success means thatalthough every Jewish institution in the kingdom was determined to destroy him, Corbyn was able to prevail by turning Labour into a popular movement. He is likely to becomePM within a year.

Corbyn proved that Western politics can survive without an injection of shekels. This is must be devastating news for the Lobby, for AIPAC, ADL, BOD, LFI, CFI, Criff and for the Michael Fosters. However, for the rest of us, it is  encouraging news, it arouses a spirit of emancipation.

Gilad’s Being in Time can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad’s site  here.

It All Stays In The Family

By Gilad Atzmon

In this Jewish educational video, rabbi Moishe Zeldman elaborates on the meaning of being a Jew. What is that thing that binds the Jews together? Is it religion? Is it race? The blood? Zeldman’s answer is that Jews are the children of Israel and they are one family. Yet, I am left perplexed. What kind of a family are the Jews? And if the Jews are a family, as Zeldman claims, shouldn’t we expect that family to take responsibility for the crimes committed by the Jewish State? If Jews are a family, should we not expect this family to take responsibility for the global wars inflicted on us by their Jewish Lobbies (AIPAC, CFI, LFI, CRIF etc)? If the Jews are a family, shouldn’t we expect its leaders to restrain their reckless Wall Street mammonites?

Shockingly enough, this is exactly how the Jewish family operates. It forms Sanhedrin Courts that are there to sustain Jewish autonomy over Jewish affairs. The crimes of Israel are opposed by a few family members who insist on conveying a humanist image (JVP, Mondoweiss etc.) AIPAC’s crude interference with American politics is not really criticised by the American people. The fight against AIPAC has been reduced into an internal family battleground. Similarly, the crimes of Wall Street are debated by some pseudo-socialist tribal agents.

If the Jews are a family, ‘it all stays in the family’ is their survival code. Yet the family is far from being “dysfunctional” as rabbi Zeldman suggests. So far, this family has been overwhelmingly productive in maintaining its hegemony while dominating the opposition. However, some dissident voices, myself included, do believe that this celebration is now coming to an end. This family business has become too transparent.

Incest – Jewish family style (video)

April 08, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

This week, I was puzzled by Donna Miinkowitz’s response to her being invited to join four other leading intellectuals in a Literary event to discuss my forthcoming book: Being in Time (30 April, Theatre 80 NYC). For Donna, the invitation evoked only feelings of“horror, fear, anger and disgust”

So I decided to look around and find out exactly what Donna Minkowitz’s own literary events look like. What I found was a most disturbing disclosure of family incest and unseemly morbidity.

Minkowitz, a writer for the Jewish Forward, describes herself as a “Jewish, Lesbian progressive.” Fine, but I warn you, watch this short video only if you have a strong stomach.

https://youtu.be/Dkm5aqii-mM

 

Jewish Labour Movement Just won’t give up

April 06, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Below is a sickening open letter issued by The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM).

The JLM is asking former and current Labour members and supporters, from across the Jewish community to sign for publication in a major newspaper.

I added my reflections on the letter along the text.

“Dear Editor,

We are former and current Labour members and supporters, from across the Jewish community and all sides of the party. We may disagree on policy, both domestic and international, but we are united by our unwavering commitment to anti-racism.”

GA: Surely what they really mean is ‘antisemitsm.’ You want to ask yourself how a political body that is defined by race can be ‘anti-racist’?  Needless to mention that we are yet to see the JLM ‘united’ against Israeli racism.

“Last night we collectively felt a sense of disgust and frustration at the decision by the NCC to not expel Ken Livingstone from the party.”

GA: I tend to agree. It is in indeed disturbing that hero socialist Livingstone is allowed to maintain his Labour party membership despite telling the truth.

“Livingstone’s comments betray a party that was founded on the values of equality and inclusivity. His history of inflammatory remarks against our community, be it his suggestions that our community’s ‘wealth’ determines our vote, or his recent smears of victims of the Holocaust, surely have no place in a progressive party.”

GA: Needless to mention that Livingstone told the absolute truth: The bond between Jewish donors and the Labour party has been disclosed by Michael Foster. Telling the truth about Zionism collaboration with Hitler’s regime is not a ‘smear’ unless being ‘progressive’ means lying compulsively and institutionally. 

Last night’s decision to allow him to remain a member presents us with an immediate dilemma about our future in the party. Despite pledges of ‘zero tolerance’ on anti-Semitism, Labour has been found wanting when it truly mattered.

GA: I tend to agree. Here is the ‘immediate dilemma.’ British Jews can either buy the Labour Party and expel the Goyim or, instead, form a new Bund party so they can celebrate their unique form of socialism that cares for one tribe only.

 

The Jewish community has a proud history with Labour, but this decision has thrown its future into jeopardy. We are sick of the complacency shown towards the prejudice we face. Enough is enough.

GA: What is it they have enough of? Prioritizing truthfulness over tribal political interests?

We fully support the Jewish Labour Movement’s proposal to initiate a debate at Labour Party Conference in September 2017 promoting the expulsion of Mr Livingstone from the Labour Party.

G: No kidding

We also support calls for an immediate review of the decision by the NEC.

GA: The people who initiated this letter seem to believe that the Labour Party is an internal Jewish affair. Sadly enough, Jeremy Corbyn, doesn’t really go out of his way to prove them wrong.

Lastly, we would like to thank those in the Labour Party who have offered us messages of solidarity, and would urge those who disagree with this decision to call on their representatives to speak out against it publicly.

G: for those who don’t understand British-Yiddish dialect, I will offer a brief translation. The JLM basically offers to look after its Sabbos Goyim within the party and in general.

Horror, Fear, Anger and Disgust…

April 05, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

In her Forward article yesterday, self-identified “Jewish lesbian leftist” Donna Minkowitz admitted to feeling “horror, fear, anger and disgust” at an invitation to speak at a literary event. “Now, that’s quite a combination of sentiments to feel all at once,” I thought to myself, “How could an invitation to attend an intellectual gathering evoke such negative feelings?”

On 30 April human-rights lawyer Stanley Cohen, history professor Norton Mezvinsky, orthodox Jewish author and whistle-blower Michael Lesher and myself will, in light of my upcoming book Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, gather together in Theatre 80, Manhattan to reflect on the collapse of Identity politics, the crisis within new-Left thinking and the future of liberal and progressive thought. We invited Donna Minkowitz to participate in the panel discussion so she could present her Jewish LGBTQ outlook. For some reason Minkowitz got the impression that she was expected  to “tout” my new book. On the contrary, Minkowitz was invited to oppose my argument.

It obviously didn’t take Minkowitz long to gather that she and I have little in common. Minkowitz is an Identitarian merchant, while I am critical of all forms of Identity politics. In my writing, I examine the role of the Left and Jewish intelligentsia at the core of the promotion of sectarian Identitarianism, tyranny of correctness and the collapse of the Athenian ethos.

Minkowitz was offered a platform to demolish my thesis. Her invitation read:

“Our aim for the discussion is to explore this analysis (i.e.Gilad Atzmon’s post-political condition)  and the current political landscape from different vantage points.”

Since Minkowitz defines herself as a” Jewish writer, a lesbian and a proud progressive,” we wanted to believe she would be courageous enough to come and educate us on the metaphysics of ‘gay Jewish’ perspectives.

https://youtu.be/Hc5mCtWixj0

Just in case you are a Golem and you don’t know how to survive a Jewish mother…

Unfortunately, in her negative response, Minkowitz is  not alone. The conference publicist  invited most of my NYC detractors to join the panel discussion but, like Minkowitz, none of them found the wherewithal to confront me. Also like Minkowitz, they probably indulged themselves in some PRE-TSDs (pre-traumatic stress delusions) – projecting their own destructive and conspiratorial tendencies onto me.

The intellectual and ethical world in which we live is in pretty poor shape but, unlike Minkowitz, I believe dialogue is essential for human recovery. I do not believe in echo chambers. Instead, I subscribe to the notion of Athenian tolerance – open debate committed to free exchange.

We offered Minkowitz the chance to break away from her ghetto even if only for an hour or two and she had the opportunity to join a panel of four provocative and leading intellects. Instead she simply succumbed to tribal fear.

 
%d bloggers like this: