“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

 

Identity Politics, Racism and Confusion

April 17, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Ian Donovan seems to be the last thinking man in the Left. I occasionally disagree with some of his ideas. However, unlike most of the people who associate themselves with that political decaying club, Donovan seems to engage in a consistent and rigorous analysis. The following is a good review of the Jews/Left current state of affairs.

 

 

Source: https://socialistfight.com/2016/04/17/identity-politics-racism-and-confusion/

By Ian Donovan

The idea that Tony Greenstein, the Jewish leftist in Brighton recently suspended from the Labour Party apparently for ‘anti-semitism’, has to prove that he is not ‘anti-semitic’ should be just absurd. It is a sign of the irrationality and demented character of the political atmosphere in and around the Labour Party, with the party leadership under extreme pressure from Zionist witchhunters, that a long time Jewish left-wing activist like Greenstein should feel obliged to ‘prove’ he is not an anti-Jewish racist.

One wonders how many black members of the Labour Party face suspension expulsion for anti-black racism, or how many of Chinese heritage face suspension for anti-Chinese bigotry? If there were such, it would make the Labour Party into the butt of stand-up comedy, not of serious political controversy. The fact that this can even be conceived in Labour is only due to the irrational nonsense peddled by Zionist racists within and without the Labour Party, that those who fail to support the Zionist project are motivated by anti-semitism (anti-Jewish racism), and that those Jews who do this are ‘self-hating Jews’. But in the absence of oppression, allegations of ‘self-hatred’ (which if it existed would simply stem from internalised oppression) are themselves a racist slur, denying the right of people of Jewish origin to choose a non-Zionist form of Jewish identity, or even to reject Jewish identity altogether, as ways to oppose the virulently racist form of ‘Jewishness’ embodied in political Zionism.

The latter accusation shows the far right, racist character of Zionism even in the Labourite context, as the ‘self-hater’ epithet, also sometimes rendered as ‘Jewish anti-semite’, is identical to the epithet ‘race traitor’ used by the white far right in the main imperialist countries. It really shows that Zionists constitute a far-right fifth column in the Labour Party, as an agency of a racist state whose followers would be quite prepared to act as instigators of the same kind of fascist-like repression against workers organisations that Israel does against Palestinians in the Middle East if they felt it necessary.

We in Socialist Fight are ourselves facing blood libels from Zionists; our Marxist analysis of the Jewish question and Zionism today has been portrayed as akin to Nazism by bourgeois commentators and some on the so-called ‘far left’ have either joined in with this rubbish, or vacillated wildly in the face of the pressure from the bourgeoisie and the Zionists. We continue to demand all the socialist and Marxist left in and around the Labour Party engage in a principled United Front to defend each other from the right-wing and the Zionists, in which all tendencies stand together on the principle that ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’, while retaining full freedom of debate.

A Jewish supporter of Socialist Fight provided us with a pretty sharp commentary on the nonsense being thrown at SF and others by all kinds of Zionists and capitulators to it. She wrote

“It seems to me although you are not Anti-Semitic (not all Jews are Semitic although I am) most of your critics are whether in a blatant or covert way. Do they actually know that Israel is an artificial concept? I have been called a self-hating Jew many times on what evidence I do not know. However once again I would like to say you are defined a Jew if:

“1. You have a Jewish mother. This does not make you a Semite as a considerable amount of East Europeans converted to the Jewish religion.
2. If you convert this of course does not make you a Semite.

“As many Muslims are Semitic surely that makes the Zionists anti-Semitic. So using Zionist logic I, a Semite who supports my Palestinian cousins who are also Semite, am anti-Semitic. However Zionists of all stripes who may and often are not Semites but support the state of Israel in whatever they do legal or illegal cannot be anti-Semitic. THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.”

 

If it is absurd for Tony Greenstein to have to prove he is not anti-semitic, it is just as absurd for the Israeli-Jewish-born Jazz Saxophonist Gilad Atzmon to have to prove such either. Neither of them would have to prove any such thing in a rational world, since both of them have similar ethnic origins – they are both Jewish by birth. Its only in the world of the Zionist-dominated body politic that we live under that people of Jewish origin have to prove that they are not anti-semitic, i.e. that they do not hate their own people purely for the ethnic origins that they share. In fact, by sleight of hand, the Zionists have expanded the definition of ‘anti-semitism’ so that you do not have to hate people of Jewish origin in general to be so accused. It’s enough to express disgust at Zionist crimes, or attempt to analyse the way Zionists organise politically to stamp on opposition to those crimes, to be accused of ‘anti-semitism’ today. This does have the effect of devaluing the meaning of the term.

Tony Greenstein, in trying to prove that he is not anti-semitic, i.e. that he is not a witch to the Labour Zionist witchhunters, has flip-flopped (not for the first time) over the long contentious issue of Gilad Atzmon, Previously, in the course of some uncharacteristically fraternal debates with Socialist Fight, where he repeated his usual nonsense about ‘anti-semitism’, he had in a sly but somewhat ‘soft’ tweet intimated that he did not consider either ourselves or Atzmon to be Jew-haters in a personal sense. At the time he was trying to reconcile the obvious fact that Socialist Fight comrades are active and militant anti-racists with the elements of genuine anti-Zionism that we share with Atzmon – the willingness to analyse, criticise and expose the international dimension of Zionism. He believes that to believe that Zionism is a Jewish bourgeois international movement is to be ‘anti-semitic’, yet we are obviously not racists at all; anyone who knows us or is not blinded by class or race prejudices can see that. So he looked for a way to resolve this contradiction in his own ideology and came up with this in the course of a Twitter exchange with me:

 

He was obviously getting carried away by the objective need in this situation for a United Front of those anti-Zionist socialists under the gun of the Zionists, feeling the pressure enough to deviate somewhat from his previously virulent hostility to Socialist Fight, and Gerry Downing and myself in particular. Which is why he tweeted this at me as part of a reasonably political exchange.

Unfortunately, this tangled him up in some pretty acute contradictions given his decade-long campaign to ostracise Atzmon from the left, but also to vilify anyone else in the left who did not join in his anathema. The sophistry involved with Enoch Powell in the above tweet is pretty transparent. Blacks and Asians who have suffered from racial abuse and violence from Powell supporters would probably regard the idea that Powell was not personally racist as absurd and somewhat offensive. Tony is not stupid, he knows that this is a fig-leaf that no-one honest will take seriously (see my deconstruction of this in my recent article Zionism’s International Dimension: Revolutionary Strategy).

But Greenstein does not have a settled position on Atzmon, just a gut antipathy that does not have a coherent theory behind it. This is why his writings are so full of bluster and contradiction when this comes up. He has now received help from the Zionist blogger BobFromBrockley, who helpfully provided him with a tweet Atzmon sent in 2014, in response to some Zionist twitter warrior.

 

According to Bob from Brockley, this tweet is suppposed to prove that Atzmon is a racial anti-semite, that he hates all Jews for racist reasons, which is really the implied meaning of any allegation of anti-semitism.

But though it looks bad at first sight, and is certainly a foolish and self-defamatory thing to tweet, something does not add up about the allegation that it represents ‘racist’ anti-semitism. The obvious point is the phrase ‘I am not a Jew anymore’. No ‘racial’ anti-semite could ever say that or believe that. It would as absurd as to say ‘I am not a black person’ any more. That is not the way the world works. You cannot change your ethnic origin any more than you can change your skin colour. Nor is there any suggestion that this is about the Jewish religion, Atzmon is not markedly either religious or anti-religious and is not hostile to anti-Zionist religious Jews. In fact, he has more regard for them than he does for many anti-Zionist secular Jews.

Twitter is a notoriously difficult medium to communicate nuance. It does appear that this tweet was simply a response in a heated exchange to a noxious Zionist troll who was subsequently suspended from Twitter for threatening violence against George Galloway. Who of course had been beaten badly by an ultra-Zionist thug only a few months earlier. I doubt that would bother Bob From Brockley much. But I am sure it would bother Tony Greenstein.

 

The tweets of OnePoundOne are no longer available, as his account was suspended as a result of these threats. But it seems obvious that if such a odious person as this had malevolently purported to appeal to Atzmon as a “fellow Jew”, he would likely have received a pungent response like this. All this really means is that Twitter is extraordinarily easy to quote out of context.

I commented on what is behind this kind of verbiage from Atzmon a while ago on the Socialist Unity blog, when I wrote:

“He divides Jews into three categories: religious Jews, people simply of Jewish origin, and people who regard their Jewishness as a political identity. These are not mutually exclusive, but they are separate and separable strands. He says his materials are actually only criticisms of the third strand or category.”

“He does tend to use ‘Jew’, ‘Jewish’ and ‘Jewishness’ too freely as shorthand for the third strand, which causes confusion and makes it easy to misunderstand him and/or quote him out of context. He seems to enjoy the heated arguments that result from such things, which is a flaw in my opinion, and sometimes generates more heat than light.”
(http://socialistunity.com/campaign-demonisation-george-galloway-constitutes-incitement/#comment-700318)

This was another example of the left’s inability to deal with Atzmon and people like him, and to get their heads around the fact that thanks to the sheer barbarism of Israel’s crimes, there are now people of Jewish origin who are so disgusted by being involuntarily associated with them that they express extreme disgust at being born and brought up Jewish. This thread was supposedly defending George Galloway from his Zionist tormentors on Question Time. I was excluded from SU by Socialist Unity’s erratic honcho Andy Newman for agreeing with Galloway’s defence of and sympathetic interview with Atzmon on Sputnik. The irony of this is incredible. If Galloway had posted comments defending his defence of Atzmon in a thread supposedly defending Galloway, he would logically have been excluded too!

One might wish Gilad Atzmon would be more careful in his use of language. But from his standpoint, since he is of Jewish origin anyway, he does not see the need.

Atzmon shares much with Shlomo Sand on the substance of this, though not in style. Sand wrote last year:

“How, in these conditions, can individuals who are not religious believers but simply humanists, democrats and liberals, and endowed with a minimum of honesty, continue to define themselves as Jews? In these conditions, can the descendants of the persecuted let themselves be embraced in the tribe of new secular Jews who see Israel as their exclusive property? Is not the very act of defining yourself as a Jew an act of affiliation to a privileged caste which creates intolerable injustices around itself?” (How I Stopped Being a Jew, 2015 p87)”

 

Atzmon’s version of this is somewhat similar, as revealed recently in an article criticising the politics of Michael Rosen, another leftist of Jewish origin who insists on ‘self-identifying’ as Jewish in a political, not merely an ethnic sense. Rosen produced a short posting on ‘anti-semitism’ in the Labour Party, demanding a ‘strong united left’ to ‘protect’ Jews from anti-semitism:

“Anti-semites would identify me as Jewish. (I self-identify that way too, but let’s leave that to one side for the moment).

“Given that’s what anti-semites do, on occasions I have to ask myself, who I would turn to for assistance in the case of unwarranted attacks, persecution, harassment or pogroms?” (cited athttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/9/michael-rosen-and-the-kosher-san)

Atzmon’s response is pungent, but it does clarify exactly what he rejects about “Jewishness” on the one hand, and what he does not and cannot reject:

“According to Rosen, anti Semites will identify him as Jewish, then in the same line, he writes that he “self-identif[ies] that way too.”  So according to Rosen, the anti Semites are actually correct in identifying Rosen as what he is, that is, a Jew

“But Rosen then claims that those who identify him as what he declares himself to be are anti Semites. I wonder, since Rosen identifies himself as a Jew, how does he know that he isn’t himself an anti Semite? Are there some criteria?

“Rosen’s Jewishness is an odd entitlement. He is entitled to identify as a Jew while the rest of us are advised that identifying him as such turns us into ‘hate mongers.’

“In my writing I delve into Jewish Pre TSD. Jews are often tormented by a phantasmic traumatic event set in the future. No one exemplifies this  mental condition better than the Jewish poet. ‘I have to ask myself, who would I turn to for assistance in the case of unwarranted attacks, persecution, harassment or pogroms?’ What persecution, what pogroms, Mr. Rosen? You are one of Britain most beloved children’s poets. You are not a Syrian refugee, no one calls to kick you out of the country.  You are not the oppressed. Why do you feel the need to prepare for a pogrom? Is it guilt on your part? Are you hiding something?

“Let me tell you, Mr. Rosen, none of my Jewish friends are afraid of pogroms or ‘unwarranted attacks.’ In the eyes of the so called ‘anti Semites’ I should be seen as a Jew, my kids are also ethnically Jewish and yet, the fear that you describe in your statement is totally foreign to us. We are free of fear. We enjoy our lives, we listen to music, we love each other and pray for peace. What we don’t do is imagine the next pogrom. Is it because we do not identify politically as Jews?” (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/4/9/michael-rosen-and-the-kosher-san)

 

rosen.jpg

This is very clarificatory about the substance of the debate between Atzmon and his left-wing, non-Zionist Jewish critics is about. It is not about ‘race’ or anything like it. It is rather about whether a progressive, non-Zionist non-religious Jewish identity is possible or even desirable. The heated conflict between Atzmon and his critics is mainly because he answers”No” to that question. It is a heresy hunt, in other words.

It is perfectly natural for those concerned with humanism and the like to find detestable something that ‘creates intolerable injustices around itself” in Sand’s words. Whether this is the correct political response is a subject for debate according to the norms of democracy that are part of the best traditions of the workers movement. What people like BobFromBrockley, who support the kind of ‘intolerable injustices’ Sand is talking about, have to say about this is less clear. Such people are hostile to workers democracy for opponents of Zionism. Greenstein, and people like him, who want to keep one foot in each camp over such democratic questions, are sooner or later going to have to make a choice.

We as Marxists do not take a definitive position on this. In our view, there is nothing inherently either good or bad about Jewish identity. Just as there is nothing inherently good or bad about being gay or lesbian, or identifying with any national or ethnic group. What we are for is freedom to choose, and opposing all discrimination and oppression not only against those who embody or embrace a particular identity, but also against those who reject such, provided they do not seek to violate the rights of others. This is separate from the question of Zionism, which is a racist project that oppresses the Palestinians and must be opposed down the line. The heresy hunt against Atzmon and the attempt to bully the left into ostracising him and those who are influenced by him is something we oppose tooth and nail because of our commitment to workers democracy and the right to free inquiry into questions of identity and related matters.

Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan thinks jews are “superior” to mere non-jews. Superior in what exactly?

Israeli Minister latest in long line of prominent Jews asserting the inferiority of non-Jews

At TOO we have felt something of a duty to document instances where prominent, mainstream Jewish figures have publicly expressed the traditional Jewish view of a qualitative superiority of Jews to non-Jews. Previous examples include the late Lubavitcher leader, Menachem Schneerson of New York who was honored by President Reagan in 1983 (“The Gentile does not want anything. He waits to be told what the Jew wants!”; we have a case of . . . a totally different species. . . . The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world).

Another well-known example is Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s statement that “Goyim were born only to serve us.” As the previous link shows, such statements are pervasive on the ethno-religious right in Israel, often by very prominent mainstream figures.

Mondoweiss provides another example, this time from Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan. Dahan, who has nine children and has lived in a West Bank settlement, recently stated that “Palestinians have to understand they won’t have a state & Israel will rule over them.”

So much for the farce of peace negotiations. But not too long ago, Dahan showed he is entirely on board with Schneerson, Yosef, et al.:

Ben-Dahan referred to Palestinians as animals in 2013, according to the Times of Israel:

“To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.”

Ben Dahan told Maariv that homosexual Jews were superior [to]gentiles — gay or straight.

“A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual,” he said.

For Jews, ethnic interests are the ultimate value, trumping trivial issues like sexual orientation. Homosexual Jews still have ethnic interests as Jews, and the ethnonationalist right seems to appreciate that fact — while sensibly not advocating a public culture of homosexuality.

It goes without saying at a US government official stating the superiority of his group would be out of a job the next day. But Dahan’s statement will not be covered in the US media, so it will not affect support for Israel among the less than human non-Jewish American public.

%d bloggers like this: