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.

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.

British Academia Faces Zionist Hooliganism (must watch)

March 31, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

With Jonathan Hoffman in the Train- An expose of Zionist hooliganism at the heart of British academia. What you are about to see is disturbing, it is violent, it is vile, it is totally foreign to Western culture. Beware…

 

Gilad Atzmon: And Now Peter Beinart Plagiarises Me

March 29, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

It doesn’t matter how much you steal, so long as you steal from the best...

By Gilad Atzmon

In 2007, in an article in Counterpunch entitled From Esther to AIPAC, I exposed the disturbing ideological continuum between the Jewish Queen Esther and the Jewish lobby AIPAC. Today I was amused to discover that, in an article in the Forward, Peter Beinart had, almost word for word, recycled my ideas.

My article delved into the Jewish cultural and religious foundations of Zionist lobby thinking and it argued that infiltration into foreign elites and political administrations are deeply embedded in Jewish teachings and traditions.  I wrote:

“The Book of Esther  … tells the story of an attempted Judeocide but it also tells a story in which Jews manage to change their fate. In the book the Jews do manage to rescue themselves and even to mete revenge… It is a story of a palace, conspiracy, an attempted Judeocide and a brave and beautiful Jewish queen (Esther) who manages to save the Jewish people at the very last minute…The moral of the story is rather clear. If Jews want to survive, they better find infiltrates into the corridors of power. With Esther, Mordechai and Purim in mind, AIPAC and the notion of ‘Jewish power’ looks like an embodiment of a deep Biblical and cultural ideology.”

Fast forward ten years, In his article from today AIPAC Reflects Heroism Of Jewish Power — And Its Perils, Beinart wrote:

“On Purim, Jews read the Book of Esther, which tells the story of a Jew who unexpectedly gains influence with a mighty king. She learns that a wicked man named Haman threatens her people with destruction. Since her status may afford her some protection, she has the option to remain silent. But she does not. She uses her power to foil the wicked man’s plot and save her people….That’s also the story of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. American Jews are Esther. They have won influence with the most powerful government on earth. They could keep their heads down, focusing only on preserving their own safety and privilege…”

It goes without saying that I’m delighted to see my ideas disseminated so accurately and so widely – and especially so within Zionist-lite circles – though it would be nice if Beinart had the bravery to admit where he got his ideas. But never mind. What really matters here, is not from whence the ideas come, but how truthful they are. And they are pretty truthful. Jewish lobbying is indeed at the core of Jewish culture.

But the above articles, both from myself and now from Peter Beinart, explain not only how Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC have managed to dominate American and British foreign affairs, but also how the same kind of people have also managed to dominate any resistance to AIPAC. Because by now, it is anti-AIPAC Jews, rather than the American people who lead any opposition to the foreign lobby that pushes America into global  disastrous conflicts.  The meaning of this is as simple as it is devastating:  AIPAC and the opposition to AIPAC are now both an internal Jewish affair. Goyim are simply excluded.

Exactly the same happened to the Palestinian Solidarity movement which is now dominated by Jewish lobbies and activists (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss etc’) . Once again, Zionism and Israeli criminality and the opposition to Zionism and Israeli criminality, have both been reduced into Jewish internal affairs – with the result that the discourse of the oppressed (the Palestinians) is now shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressors.

But this should not take us by surprise. Two thousand years of imaginary ‘diaspora’, pathological victimhood and fake news have led to the emergence of a radical exilic culture, highly skilled and sophisticated in hegemony tactics and power strategies. What’s not to like?

The misuse for political purposes of the concept of anti-semitism

Abuse of the term ‘antisemitism’

https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/files/styles/carousel/public/sedley_dwl_2016_carousel.jpg?itok=VLfIiLWw

Sir Stephen Sedley (born 1939), is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales 1999-2011 and is currently a visiting professor at the University of Oxford. He became a QC in 1983, was appointed a High Court judge in 1992,and in 1999 was appointed to the Court of Appeal as a Lord Justice of Appeal. He was a Judge ad hoc of the European Court of Human Rights and a Member ad hoc of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
His father was Bill Sedley (1910–1985), of a Jewish immigrant family, who operated a legal advice service in the East End of London in the 1930s. Bill Sedley founded the firm of lawyers of Seifert and Sedley in the 1940s with Sigmund Seifert and was a lifelong Communist.

Stephen Sedley slams IHRA (mis)definition

Speech given by distinguished retired Appeal Court Judge Sir Stephen Sedley on 27 March at a meeting in the House of Lords

Free Speech on Israel
March 27, 2017

The purpose of this meeting is to draw attention to a growing concern about the misuse for political purposes of the concept of anti-semitism. The misuse in question is the conflation of criticism of Israel with hostility to Jews. Its political purpose is to prohibit or inhibit discourse or action inimical to the state of Israel.

There are two distinct backstories to the catch-all meaning of antisemitism with which this meeting is immediately concerned.

One is the longstanding, and largely successful, endeavour to segregate antisemitism from racism. It has for a good many years been part of Zionist discourse to contend that racism is one thing – based on concepts of genetic inferiority – and antisemitism another, based on historical and theological as well as genetic factors. This is not the place to pursue the argument, save perhaps to note that anti-semites do not as a rule worry about whether their targets are observant, orthodox or secular Jews: their spleen is directed at members of a race.

The other backstory is the Zionist claim to represent all the world’s Jews – a claim welcomed by Islamic extremists. Nothing suits Islamic fundamentalism better than the idea that all Jews are equally implicated in the excesses of Zionism. The claim depoliticises Zionism and legitimises jihadist anti-semitism.1

Against this already dangerous backdrop, we are now looking at the no doubt well-intentioned but naïve adoption by our executive government of a protean definition of antisemitism which is open to manipulation and capture by the background interests I have mentioned. In this regard I would go rather further than Hugh Tomlinson does in his careful and well-reasoned Opinion. The governing proposition that antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews” carries the clear implication that it may equally be expressed in other, unspecified, ways.

As Hugh Tomlinson says, this passage is vague and confusing; but I am not sure that the critique should stop there. It seems to me that its open-ended formulation has a thought-out purpose: to bring within the pale of antisemitism perceptions of Jews – possibly but not necessarily of all Jews – which fall short of hatred. While this may legitimately cover familiar antisemitic slanders about greed, clannishness and so forth, it is also capable of embracing perceptions of Zionism which are the subject of legitimate debate and disagreement.

Is there a single entity capable of being characterised as “the Jewish people”? Am I obliged to regard myself as bound by ethnicity to people like Benjamin Netanyahu?

That this is part of the intended reach is now becoming evident. One of the adopted examples is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” This passage bristles with controversial assumptions. Is there a single entity capable of being characterised as “the Jewish people”? Am I obliged to regard myself as bound by ethnicity to people like Benjamin Netanyahu? Then, assuming that there is such an ethnic entity, from where does it derive a collective right to self-determination capable of defeating the right to self-determination of other peoples, above all the Palestinian people? There have been many Jews – my father was one – who long before 1947 opposed the Zionist project on the ground that Jewish exceptionalism was exactly what antisemitism needed.

Lastly, accepting as one must that the state of Israel, whatever has been argued in the past about its right to exist, is a geopolitical ‘fact on the ground’, why are people, including many Jews, not entitled, without being branded antisemitic, to regard it in its present form as both a colonialist and an apartheid state? The demand that criticism, to be legitimate, must be ‘similar to that levelled against any other country’ assumes that there are other countries which behave like Israel. There may well be, but how can this properly be a precondition of any criticism?

I will not travel over the consequential legal ground that Hugh Tomlinson so ably traverses. It is sufficient to emphasise these points:

The adoption by government of the IHRA’s “working definition” does not clothe it with any legal force. At the same time, it is not neutral: it may well influence policy both domestically and internationally.

No policy, however, can be adopted or used in defiance of the law. The Convention right of free expression, now part of our domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, places both negative and positive obligations on the state which may be put at risk if the IHRA definition is unthinkingly followed. And s. 43 of the 1986 Education Act, while passed to deal with very different kinds of controversy, vouchsafes an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions which cannot be cut back by governmental policies.

What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted in disregard of the sane advice given to it by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

1 For my part I am critical of the ECtHR’s judgment in CICAD v Switzerland, because it failed to recognise that the offending article, with its assertion that “when Israel is exposed … it is Judaism that is exposed at the same time” was a classic attempt to taint all Jews with Israel’s violations of human rights. Its author in my view had been rightly accused of antisemitism.

Why The UN Branded israel An Apartheid State

Why The UN Branded Israel An Apartheid State

By Juan Cole

boycott israel apartheid palestine

Apparently the Trump administration at Israeli urging threatened to defund the UN if this report was not withdrawn. The UN Secretary-General caved, and the executive director of ESCWA (who was also an under-secretary general of the UN), Rima Khalaf, has resigned. The legal case built by the ESCWA report remains sound.

A shouting match has been provoked this week by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, which issued a report this week concluding definitively that Israel is guilty of Apartheid practices toward the Palestinians. The report is careful to say that it is not using the term merely as a pejorative but is rather appealing to a body of international law with precise definitions, definitions that Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians easily and transparently meet. Here’s the short blog version of the report, which runs to 76 pages.

Apartheid is a Dutch word meaning “apartness” and was used to describe the system of racial segregation deployed by the ruling Afrikaner minority in South Africa 1948-1991. In international law, however, it has been generalized to any government practicing systematic racial domination.

Article II of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines it this way:

“The term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to… inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”

The 2002 Rome Statute, which has 150? signatories among the nations of the world, and which established the International Criminal Court, contained a definition of Apartheid.

“The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts . . . committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime…”

Apartheid is one of the listed “crimes against humanity” along with enslavement, torture, war rape, and forcible deportation. A crime against humanity is the systematic and continuous commission of war crimes.

Because of these international law instruments (the Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty), Apartheid now refers to a generalized crime, not just the policy of the old South African government.

As a result, the Court can under some circumstances charge individual politicians with the crime of Apartheid. Those circumstances are that

1) the country has signed the Rome Statute or

2) that the UN Security Council has forwarded the case of a war criminal to the ICC.

Neither of these circumstances fits Israel, since it is not a signatory and the US would veto any attempt to charge a major Israeli politician at the International Criminal Court. This inability to bring Israeli officials to the Hague, however, is merely procedural. As a matter of law, Israel can still be guilty of Apartheid practices.

The UN report is concerned with specific legal infractions as spelled out by international law, and with the intention behind those infractions. Intent to dominate another people is important to the definition of Apartheid.

The report points out that

“The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews.”

Going back to the colonial Jewish National Fund, there has been a practice that once land is owned by Zionist institutions, including the Israeli state, it can never be sold to a non-Jew– it is permanently taken off the market on a racial basis.

The Law of Return is another discriminatory practice. Any Jew anywhere in the world can emigrate to Israel. But no Palestinian family expelled in 1948 can return to their ancestral homeland.

Jewish councils may reject applications for residence from Palestinian-Israelis. An Israeli Jew who married an American Christian is allowed to bring the spouse to Israel; but an Israeli Jew who married a West Bank Palestinian may not.

The report argues that in the Israel-Palestinian context, Palestinians are a “race.” I would add that the exclusion of Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens underlines this definition, since one characteristic of race is endogamy or marrying within the in-group.

Other UN decisions have recognized the Palestinians as a people entitled to self-determination (and indeed such recognition goes back to the correspondence of League of Nations states overseeing the British Mandate over Palestine in the 1920s).

The document says:

“This report finds that the strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people is the principal method by which Israel imposes an apartheid regime. It first examines Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid how the history of war, partition, de jure and de facto annexation and prolonged occupation in Palestine has led to the Palestinian people being divided into different geographic regions administered by distinct sets of law. This fragmentation operates to stabilize the Israeli regime of racial domination over the Palestinians and to weaken the will and capacity of the Palestinian people to mount a unified and effective resistance.”

As for the specifics of Apartheid in the Occupied West Bank, the UN document observes that this territory is virtually a textbook case in Apartheid governance:

“Domain 3 is the system of military law imposed on approximately 4 .6 million Palestinians who live in the occupied Palestini an territory, 2 .7 million of them in the West Bank and 1.9 million in the Gaza Strip. The territory is administered in a manner that fully meets the definition of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention: except for the provision on genocide, every illustrative “inhuman act” listed in the Convention is routinely and systematically practiced by Israel in the West Bank. Palestinians are governed by military law, while the approximately 350,000 Jewish settlers are governed by Israeli civil law. The racial character of this situation is further confirmed by the fact that all West Bank Jewish settlers enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law on the basis of being Jewish, whether they are Israeli citizens or not. This dual legal system, problematic in itself, is indicative of an apartheid regime when coupled with the racially discriminatory management of land and development administered by Jewish – national institutions, which are charged with administering “State land” in the interest of the Jewish population.”

The Executive Summary is here.

 

Rabbis Fake Solidarity Once Again

February 09, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned a few days ago that 19 rabbis were arrested in NYC during a protest at Trump International Hotel. The Rabbi operates within the T’ruah organisation, a rabbinical human rights group that was formed (in 2002) to convey an image of Judaic ethical and universal awareness.

patch.com reports that the rabbis sat down in the street in front of the Trump Hotel in an act of protest against Trump’s executive orders affecting Muslim immigrants and refugees. But T’ruah do not just oppose Trump’s policy as ordinary human beings or American patriots. They actually operate as ‘Jews.’

Chutzpah, as we know, is a Jewish invention and Rabbi Jill Jacobs, T’ruah’s executive director, has a lot of it in her disposal. “It makes a statement when we (Rabbis) are willing to put our bodies on the line.” she said. Perplexed Goyim may wonder how exactly Rabbi Jacobs puts her ‘body on the line’ (sitting down on the street in the middle of Manhattan)? The rabbi must have realised how ridiculous her statement was, as she then corrected herself. “Right now the people whose bodies are really on the line are people trying to get to America, and risking death to do so. The least that we can do is put our bodies a little bit on the line…to bring attention to the situation of refugees.”

Rabbi Kleinbaum also added a statement concerning rabbinical heroism. “I’m risking arrest today because America welcomed my own immigrant family to its shores, as it did millions of families before us who fled persecution.” But if Rabbi Kleinbaum is actually talking as an American Patriot who cares for American universal values, why is he protesting ‘as a Jew’? He should really protest as a proud American.

“As Jews, who know what it means to be targeted by discriminatory laws, we stand firmly with refugees fleeing war, persecution, and economic strife,” T’ruah Rabbis said in a statement.

Along the years I have developed an allergy to “as a” statements in general and “as a Jew” proclamations in particular. For one reason or another, rather often ‘as a Jew’ constructions happen to be grossly duplicitous. If Jews know so much about persecution how come their Jewish State is institutionally racist and discriminatory towards minorities and gentiles? If Jews are pro immigration, how come their Jewish State is vile in its attitude towards illegal immigration. If the Jews ‘stand firmly with refugees’ isn’t it about time their Jewish State invites millions of Palestinian refugees to return to the land that belongs to them and them alone? Do T’ruah rabbis openly support the Palestinian right of return? If they do, they manage to keep quiet about it.

But let’s take it further, can the T’ruah rabbis report to us how many Syrians have found a refuge in Jewish homes? How many refugees are living in rabbi Kleinbaum’s and Jacobs’ spare bedroom? Considering the war against Islam was a Zio-Con project, can the Rabbis tell us when is the last time they sat down in the street in front of Paul Wolfowitz’ or Bernard Henri Levy’s homes? After all, Henri Levy claimed that ‘as a Jew’ he ‘liberated’ Libya. Shouldn’t the T’ruah rabbis at least occupy the streets in front of the Israeli Embassy and AIPAC offices? After all, it was Israel and its lobby that pushed for war in Syria. It was Israel and its lobby that are directly involved in the creation of the refugee crisis in Syria.

I kindly advise T’ruah and other Jewish human rights groups  to be slightly more economical with their duplicity. By now, the Goyim know. They see it all and their patience is about to run out.

 

%d bloggers like this: