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!

Advertisements

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders

Local Editor

03-07-2017 | 15:29

‘Israeli’ opposition leader Isaac Herzog confirmed that he, along with Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited leaders in the Arab world, saying: “I met with leaders that have never been seen by ‘Israeli’ eyes. The political process I was in charge of was huge, and it gives hope of building a Palestinian state,” ‘Israel’ Hayom reported.

Isaac Herzog: Netanyahu and I Visited Arab Leaders


Herzog, however, said he was “not ready for any one-sided step,” the newspaper added. “There is an alternative coalition in our hands. Proper work might defragment Netanyahu’s coalition,” he added.

Herzog’s remarks were made on the eve of the preliminary elections of the Zionist “Labor” Party which will take place on Tuesday to elect a new president.

Estimations, however, show that none of the candidates will win 40% of the votes, the required percentage for someone to win, expecting to hold another round next Monday.

Source: Zionist Media, Edited by website team

“Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis”

Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist

Trump’s election is having fascinating consequences. Today the New York Times ran a long piece titled, “Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump,” by Omri Boehm of the New School saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction: liberal American Jews have “identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics.”

Boehm’s most startling point is that Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis. Hannah Arendt is happy today.

The piece will greatly increase the pressure on liberal Zionists to choose one idea or the other, and to stop denying the existence of apartheid.

Boehm says white nationalist Richard Spencer helped to blow up the liberal Zionist hypocrisy in his famous encounter with a Texas rabbi when he said he admires Israel for its ethnic purity and the rabbi had nothing to say. Some of Boehm’s hammer blows:

by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right…

insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion…

Boehm never comes out and uses the term “racist,” but he might as well.

Trump has changed the map.

As long as liberalism was secure back in America and the rejection of liberalism confined to the Israeli scene, this tension could be mitigated. But as it spills out into the open in the rapidly changing landscape of American politics, the double standard is becoming difficult to defend…

[T]he following years promise to present American Jewry with a decision that they have much preferred to avoid. Hold fast to their liberal tradition, as the only way to secure human, citizen and Jewish rights; or embrace the principles driving Zionism.

By the way, the denial of the right of return is racist:

Opposition to the Palestinians’ “right of return” is a matter of consensus among left and right Zionists because also liberal Zionists insist that Israel has the right to ensure that Jews constitute the ethnic majority in their country. That’s the reason for which Rabbi Rosenberg could not answer Spencer.

And then this verboten history: Zionists collaborated with “anti-Semitic politics.” With Nazis:

The “original sin” of such alliances may be traced back to 1941, in a letter to high Nazi officials, drafted in 1941 by Avraham Stern, known as Yair, a leading early Zionist fighter and member in the 1930s of the paramilitary group Irgun, and later, the founder of another such group, Lehi. In the letter, Stern proposes to collaborate with “Herr Hitler” on “solving the Jewish question” by achieving a “Jewish free Europe.” The solution can be achieved, Stern continues, only through the “settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine.” To that end, he suggests collaborate with the German’s “war efforts,” and establish a Jewish state on a “national and totalitarian basis,” which will be “bound by treaty with the German Reich.”

It has been convenient to ignore the existence of this letter, just as it has been convenient to mitigate the conceptual conditions making it possible.

This is an opinion piece by an outsider, not a New York Times article. Hell and everything else would freeze if the NYT started writing news pieces which presupposed Zionism as actually practiced is racist. They won’t do that yet. They might conceivably start writing articles where people with that view are treated respectfully as they express it, rather than hiding the view from readers or treating people who express it as moral lepers.

Many of Boehm’s arguments have been made on the left for years, of course. The liberal Zionists chose to ignore them and talk about the two-state solution. They are losing that luxury. Though, expect some pushback from the Zionist forces inside the New York Times.

The Times would never have run this piece if Boehm were not Israeli. Just as the newspaper insisted, according to the late Tony Judt, that he identify himself as Jewish when he defended Walt and Mearsheimer in 2006. There are double standards in the press too.

 

Theresa May trying to stifle criticism of apartheid israel

Letter, The Guardian

Fears new definition of antisemitism will stifle criticism of Israel

December 16, 2016

You report that the government is going to adopt a “new definition” of antisemitism in order to prevent an “over-sweeping condemnation of Israel” (Britain to pioneer new antisemitism definition, 12 December). The new definition has nothing to do with opposing antisemitism, it is merely designed to silence public debate on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Antisemitic incidents comprise about 2% of all hate crime. Why then the concentration on antisemitism and not on Islamophobia, which is far more widespread? The suspicion must be that the real concern is not with antisemitism but with Britain’s support for Israel.

Israel claims to be “the only democracy in the Middle East.” Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation are governed by a wholly different set of laws than Jewish settlers. This makes Israel the world’s only apartheid state and thus deserving of strong condemnation and the target of boycott, divestment and sanctions. We agree that it is antisemitic to associate Jews with the actions of the Israeli state. Unfortunately this is precisely what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition will achieve through perpetuating the stereotype that all Jews support the Israeli state. The IHRA will strengthen not weaken antisemitism. There is a very simple definition of antisemitism from Oxford University’s Brian Klug. Antisemitism is “a form of hostility towards Jews as ‘Jews’.” The IHRA definition smuggles in anti-Zionism, in the guise of antisemitism, as a means of protecting the Israeli state and thus western foreign policy.

Tony Greenstein
Jacqueline Walker *
Miriam Margolyes *
Professor Haim Bresheeth *
Professor Nira Yuval-Davis *
Michael Sackin *
Dr Derek Summerfield King’s College
Professor Roger Iredale
Averil Parkinson Cambridge Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Dr Vacy Vlazna Coordinator, Justice for Palestine Matters
Vicky Moller Child survivor of the Holocaust
Dr Cathy Rozel Farnworth
Rica Bird *
Chantal Cameron
Robert Cohen *
Brian Chinnery
Mike Cushman *
Deborah Darnes
Patrick Darnes
Helen Dickson
Tony Dickinson
Greg Dropkin
Mark Elf
Deborah Fink *
Kenny Fryde
Terry Gallogly
Judy Granville
James Hall
William Hanna
Jenny Hardacre
Abe Hayeem *
Alain Hertzmann
Doug Holton
Grahame Humphreys
John Leigh-Brown
Penny Leigh-Brown
Leah Levane *
Les Levidow
Richard Lightbown
Beverley Lloyd
Kathy McCubbing
Elizabeth Morley *
Diana Neslen *
Caroline O’Reilly
Edmond O’Reilly
Juergen Peter
Nicola Pratt University of Warwick
Roland Rance
Janine Reed
Bronwen Roberts
Donald Saunders
Ian Saville *
Miriam Scharf
Richard Seaford
Roddy Slorach
Charles Stuart
Jean Sullivan
Bernice Walker
Adam Waterhouse
Eric Willoughby
Dorothy Wilson
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi *
* JfJfP signatory

SHIMON PERES IS DEAD, BUT HIS LEGACY OF GENOCIDE AND DECEPTION IS ALIVE AND WELL

peres-demon

by Jonathan Azaziah

I understand the visceral need to rejoice over certified demon Shimon Peres finally kicking the bucket, especially our Lebanese and Palestinian brethren whose families have suffered the most unspeakable things at his hands of ruination. I truly do. And admittedly, I smiled ear-to-ear when I read the breaking news. Rejoicing in delirium however is not only counterproductive and out of place but completely out of touch with reality. Peres, or, as he should be called, Szymon Perski (his Ashkenazi birth name), may indeed be dead but his legacy of genocide and deception is alive and well, just as the case was (and remains) with Ariel Sharon’s (real name: Scheinermann) legacy of genocide and barbarism. There can be no rest even for a second because there are still 6-7 million usurping, occupying Jews roaming around illegally in Palestine, which means there are still 6-7 million potential Syzmon Perskis roaming around illegally in Palestine too. And make no mistake, while Sharon was a warmongering maniac who didn’t give a damn if the “Goyim” saw him drink blood in public, it is the cunning of Peres that makes him infinitely more dangerous and destructive.

Perski was indeed a paragon, if not THE paragon, of Liberal Zionism. And while many commentators would correctly argue that there is no “liberal” version of ethnic cleansing, land theft, resource pillaging and mass murder in the name of Halakhic-Talmudic law, Liberal Zionists are markedly different from their Revisionist (right-wing) Zionist counterparts in their chameleonic ability to claim they come in peace with a stone-cold straight face while simultaneously engaging in even larger, even bloodier acts of violence than their rightist coreligionists. Talk “peace”, walk war; this was Peres to the letter. As he built up ‘Israeli’ diplomatic relations all over the Global South, Africa particularly, tricking newly decolonized peoples into believing that ‘Israel’ was some kind of socialist oasis in a desert of “reactionaries”, as he preached “peace” and “tolerance” in Western capitals, as he claimed “dovishness”, as he collected the utterly fraudulent trinket known as the Nobel Peace Prize, he was also the single-greatest mover and shaker behind the usurping Zionist entity’s “defense” industry which now exports 5-7 billion dollars worth of death machines, tech and arms per year. It can be said without challenge that he was in fact the godfather of ‘Israeli’ weapons manufacturing and he was the godfather of the criminal Zionist nuclear weapons program at Dimona in occupied Al-Naqab too.

Perski schmoozed and bamboozled the colonialist French regime into helping his savage little tumor build its nukes while he signed off on operations involving theft of nuclear materials from the United States, like Project Pinto, the NUMEC debacle and the activities of LAKAM-agent-turned-Hollywood-mogul Arnon Milchan, who Perski personally recruited. And let us not forget for a moment that above and beyond all this shadowy intrigue and clandestine intelligence work, which also included creating Al-Qaeda and helping the South African apartheid regime with its own nuclear program, Perski had no issue whatsoever in spilling the blood of the innocent when it suited him. The slaughter of 106 civilians, mostly children, in Lebanon’s Qana in April ’96 comes to mind, as does the Nakba itself, in which the founding Zionist was intimately involved in running guns to Haganah as well as the Irgun. Perski was actually ideologically committed to inflicting terrorism wherever it was “necessary”, all to preserve the existence of the artificial Jewish supremacist regime. As former ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Moshe Sharett (real name: Shertok) revealed in 1955 when writing about Pinkas Lavon who would go on to carry out the false flag known as Operation Susannah, “Peres shares the same ideology [as Lavon]: He wants to frighten the West into supporting ‘Israel’s’ aims.” Arms-dealer, nuke-builder, child-killer, terrorism-enthusiast. Perski really was “peace” personified, wasn’t he?

Sarcasm aside though, our aim here extends far beyond exposing Perski’s true colors and documenting his six decades of spreading chaos and devastation on the planet as the children of Satan tend to do. What we’re really out to achieve is a true understanding of the problem on our plates and the subsequent prevention of another Perski–or Perskis–coming into being and unleashing more immeasurable calamities like the ‘Israeli’ defense industry and nuclear program. Such a scheme is already afoot in the Palestine Solidarity Movement today. Remember that no matter what, the ultimate goal of Shimon Peres was to advance the interests of International Zionism and preserve ‘Israel’ in our midst. Despite the flowery language of solidarity and liberation that the overwhelming majority of Jewish “pro-Palestine” activists happen to use, their goal, like Perski, is to keep the ‘Israeli’ cancer alive in Palestine and stop the criminal usurper population from returning to their countries of origin.

These CHAZA, the Hebrew word for “pig”–which in this instance is being used as an acronym for “controlled, halfway-‘Anti’-Zionist agents”; clever, ain’t it? 😀 –have removed “Death To ‘Israel’” from the Palestine Solidarity lexicon, declared that support for Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Arab Republic is not acceptable, blacklisted Hizbullah, refused to discuss Oded Yinon, gone AWOL on discussing the ‘Israeli’ role in spreading Takfirism and noted that any talk about alternative WW2 history, 9/11 truth or Jewish influence, wealth and power on a global scale is “anti-Semitism” and grounds for termination from the ranks of the “movement”. Intellectually speaking, what makes the mindset of the CHAZA any different from Peres? They can call it “Post-Zionism” or even “Anti”-Zionism, but they are still channeling Liberal Zionism stalwart Perski’s legerdemain in totality: Talk liberation, walk the status quo. And just as so many foolish Arabs and Muslims lined up behind Peres and Rabin to back the Oslo Accords over 20 years ago, they’re falling for the okey-doke again today with the Jews of the Palestine Solidarity Movement, allowing them to dictate discourse and attempt to demolish belief in an ‘Israeli’-free Palestine like IOF demolishes Palestinian homes with bulldozers in Al-Quds. This cannot continue if Palestine and yes, the entirety of ALLAH’s (SWT) Green Earth, are to be liberated from the clutches of these deceivers.

Szymon Perski is dead, but his legacy of genocide and deception is alive and well in the form of a new, more advanced, more underhanded type of Zionist: The CHAZA. And this is exactly what cancers do, don’t they? If left untreated, they mutate into something exceedingly more difficult to deal with and ultimately defeat. But just as most of the world today looks at Perski as the sanguinary, felonious, children-butchering hypocrite he was, his ideological offspring too will meet the swords of truth and exposé, for ‘Anti’-Zionist pretenders, like their Liberal Zionist predecessors, aren’t welcome among us. Rest in torment and rot in Jahannam Peres, you foul, ghastly, heinous parasite. In the name of Qana, every inch of Palestine and all of humanity that stands on the brink of annihilation because of the usurping Jewish entity’s nuclear program that you helped birth, we declare that soon, the abomination of ‘Israel’ will die like you and all the crimes that you committed will have been for nothing. How I do know that? ‘Cause in the final analysis, vultures posing as doves do not even stand a ghost of a chance against the majestic eagles desperately hungry to fly over a liberated Al-Aqsa.

#DeathToIsrael #RestInTormentPeres

Choseness from Bernard Lazare to Michael Foster

August 17, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Those who want to learn how Jews bring disasters on themselves should follow the activities of Michael Foster,  a man who identifies himself as a  “Labour Jewish donor” and labels Corbyn supporters "Sturm Abteilung" (Nazi stormtroopers). 

Those who want to learn how Jews bring disasters on themselves should follow the activities of Michael Foster,  a man who identifies himself as a  “Labour Jewish donor” and labels Corbyn supporters “Sturm Abteilung” (Nazi stormtroopers).

By Gilad Atzmon

In 1894 the French Zionist intellectual Bernard Lazare published his monumental book‘Anti-Semitism, its Causes and History.’ 

Like most of his contemporary early Zionists, Lazare realised that anti-Semitism had its roots in the bad behaviour of Jews.

Four and a half decades before the Shoah, Lazare discerned what it was about the Jews that made them hated in so many disparate places and time periods. Lazare and most of his fellow early Zionists understood that the Jews were often complicit, if unwittingly, in their own victimisation. They were actually pretty effective in bringing disasters on themselves.

Those who want to learn how Jews bring disasters on themselves should follow the activities of Michael Foster, a man who identifies himself as a prominent “Labour Jewish donor.”

The Jewish Labour donor Foster suffers from the belief that the Labour party is a private matter for Jews. He “despises” Corbyn as well as his supporters. He presumes that the £400, 000 he has spent on the Labour party entitles him to dismiss what seems to be the democratic choice of the vast majority of Labour party members. Foster’s recent Daily Mail commentary,  ‘Why I despise Jeremy Corbyn and his Nazi stormtroopers’ provides us with a spectacular illustration of Jewish bad behaviour.

Consistent with the most distasteful supremacist tribal conduct, Foster dismisses Corbyn followers as a ‘circus’ and as ‘Corbynistas,’ he calls them “disciples” to imply that Corbyn followers are a religious cult rather than a rational political movement. The Jewish donor goes so far as to label Corbyn supporters as Sturm Abteilung (Nazi stormtroopers).

In fact, the only contemporary collectives that resemble Sturm Abteilung are West BankJewish settlers and the Beitar Jerusalem football fans who chant en masse “Here we are, we’re the most racist football team in the country!”

In a bizarre twist, Foster who is an active and prominent operator for a foreign lobby (LFI), dares to call Corbyn’s politics “alien to this country.” Foster imagines that the man who is supported by a huge majority within the Labour party membership is “divisive and aggressive.”

What makes the Corbynistas divisive and aggressive? Foster answers, “if you are like me, a Jewish donor to Labour, you are smeared as a Blairite conspirator, plotting to falsely use the accusation of anti-Semitism to damage the Left.” But Foster has been behaving exactly as he describes openly and intensively for over a year. Maybe Lazare’s compendium of Jewish bad behaviour needs an updated revision. It is sadly symptomatic of a Jewish political merchant to be oblivious to the effects of his own actions. Michael Foster self-identifies as a Jewish Labour donor and overtly operates against Corbyn, the democratic choice of the Labour party. Foster proclaims his £400, 000 investment in the Labour Party and then protests that he is deeply offended when he is singled out by some of Corbyn’s supporters for his behaviour.

At least Michael Foster has added a precious contribution to our understanding of Jewish politics and power. For obvious reasons not many Jewish mammonites are stupid enough to acknowledge their conspiratorial agenda. Foster is doing so for free.

Bernard Lazare published Anti-Semitism, its Causes and History four decades before Hitler came to power. Instead of reading Lazare and attempting to remedy their position,Jewish institutions labeled Lazare as a self-hater and ignored his invaluable study.  Lazare didn’t know Michael Foster but he identified the Jewish supremacist symptoms that are, unfortunately, attached to Jewish culture, politics, collectivism and lobbying. Lazare identified the self-aggrandising belief in his own superiority that fuels Michael Foster.  But there is one symptom Lazare failed to identify; the choseness that is an unfortunate and severe form of blindness.  Choseness, like supremacy, disables any form of mirroring or self-reflection.

Galloway: Antisemitism and Islamophobia

Antisemitism And Zionism are Two Faces of the Same Coin

Anti-Zionism is NOT Antisemitism

 

%d bloggers like this: