Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

Why is the world today (2018) the way that it is?

Consider these historical facts:

We have had centuries of revolution in the Western world.  Jews have played critical roles in these revolutions.

It is now 170 years since Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published.  1848 was known as a year of revolutions in Europe.

Modern psychiatry or psychology (psychoanalysis) was founded by several Jews in Europe in the late 1800s (Freud and his cohorts).

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

It has been 120 years since the “forged”, but strikingly prescient, Protocols were circulated.

Large scale emigration of Jews from eastern Europe into the United States begins in the waning years of the 19th century and accelerates greatly in the first 25 years of the 20th century.  This large influx of Jews with alien ideas begins to transform US society beginning in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson (one of the most damaging administrations in US history).

The world has endured a century of murderous, atheistic Bolshevism in various forms throughout the world.  Ethnic Jews foisted this program on to the world.

The Jew (Zionist) orchestrated Balfour Declaration (1917) brings America into the European War (World War One) resulting in a defeat for Germany and the punitive Versailles Treaty.  The seeds for a second world war are sown.

The Institute for Social Research (also known as The Frankfurt School) was started in Weimar Germany in the 1920s.  When Hitler came to power early in 1933, these Jewish social revolutionaries fled to New York and set up shop with the help of US Jews.  We have them to thank or blame for the destructive social engineering known today as the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Powerful Jewish interests in Britain push the British to war with Germany in 1939.  The Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union have built the world’s largest army in history and await the opportunity to spread their revolution by force of arms.  This they do beginning in September, 1939 by annexing eastern Poland.  Then the USSR attacks Finland in late 1939.  In the spring of 1940, it is the Baltic States’ turn as these 3 small nation states are occupied by the Red Army.  Later in 1940, Stalin seizes part of Romania.  (There are many who believe that Hitler’s invasion in June, 1941 was a preemptive strike to forestall a Bolshevik onslaught against central and western Europe.)  Jews in the Roosevelt Administration opportunistically seize upon FDR’s infatuation with both Stalin and utopian communism and urge FDR to aid those countries at war with Germany, which FDR does through Lend-Lease.  As well, Soviet spies penetrate FDR’s government bureaucracy.  During the war, FDR’s policies and agreements favor the USSR at the cost of all other nations and peoples involved.  The outcome of the war is a victory for the Jewish banking interests in London and New York, and a victory for Jewish communists throughout Europe (with the enslavement of Christian nations in central and eastern Europe).

We have had 70 years of holocaustism, which seeks to inculcate the idea of a perpetual victimhood of the Jews in the minds of goyim (gentiles, non-Jews).  Obviously, when we obsess on alleged Jewish suffering, we are not likely to focus on Jewish villainy, or even suspect that such villainy exists.

Rabid and heretical Christian Zionism spreads widely in American Protestantism in the 1960s and 1970s.  The pro-Israeli lobby in the US is greatly strengthened by the support of millions of these deluded Christian Zionist voters, and this impacts US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Also in the 1960s, feminism is effectively hijacked by 3 Jewesses, Friedan, Abzug, and Steinem (half Jewish) and becomes radical or gender feminism which promotes enmity between the sexes.  Also, at this time, pornography spreads and is accepted in the culture.  Hugh Hefner was not the only Jew promoting and publishing pornography.  The adult film industry is largely run by Jews.

The world’s finances and financial markets are largely controlled by the interlocking Rothschild banking empire.  Financial panics and recessions/depressions can be caused at any time to wipe out middle class savings and make people more dependent upon government “assistance”.

We are being told that nationalism anywhere in the world is “anti-Semitism” by default.  Another lie from the Jews.

The elders in Israel threaten the world with nuclear holocaust via their Samson Option if Israel’s existence is seriously threatened or in jeopardy.  Long before the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu in the mid 1980s, the world knew that Israel possessed atomic weapons.  The Israeli threat of atomic holocaust for the world cannot simply be ignored.

The current world order, or the New World Order in progress, is a Semitic scam and sham.  We are all to be serfs and debt slaves on the global plantation (another collectivist, Talmudic utopia) ruled from Jerusalem.  Christian Zionists, lackeys for the Jews, may patrol the fields with whips in their hands as overseers for the absentee Jewish landlords.

We are all Palestinians now, with a life sentence in this New World Order.

Has not humanity paid a high enough price for the arrogance, deceit and betrayal of these chauvinistic Jews, for their crimes, for Jewish villainy?

conclusions and recommendations

We have lamented before that the Jewish Revolutionary Nature is incompatible with Western, Christian Civilization.  The above noted historical movements and facts demonstrate the truth of this position.  (An in-depth analysis of each of the above movements is obviously beyond the scope of this blog post.  However, the interested reader can do an Internet search for articles and books on all of the above noted historical movements and find the Jewish influence and control behind each.)  The Jews when acting on this revolutionary nature, which seems to be embedded in their genes as it persists from generation to generation, subvert the culture of whatever host society (nation) they live in.  They act to divert and deform the normal, natural development and progress of that culture.  It is a zero sum game that the Jews seek to always win.

You may cry out that not all Jews are social revolutionaries.  You would be quite right, but that does not alter the above facts.  In the Bolshevik Revolution, not every Russian Jew was a communist, but nearly every communist leader and inciter of violent revolution was an ethnic Jew.  The Cheka and NKVD mass killers were disproportionately Jewish.

The current trajectory of world society is for greater loss of freedom and more intrusive governmental control of our lives, and for Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism to continue to divide and demoralize western and Christian peoples.

Western historiography must be reformed by people who are free of bias and are capable of objectivity when investigating and chronicling historical events.  Censorship of facts solely because these offend the Jews or expose their villainy can no longer be tolerated.  We need publishing houses that are not controlled by Jewish ownership.

No more wars should be fought by Christian peoples for these damned Jews and their nefarious schemes!!

No more believing in this Chosen People nonsense to give the Jews a free pass any longer.

Humanity cannot afford the cost of Jewish Supremacism and domination any longer.

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

Gilad Atzmon Needs Your Immediate Support!

March 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Support Gilad.jpg

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Campaign Against Antisemitsm’s chairman Gideon Falter. I have made the decision to fight this crucial battle for freedom of expression even though this fight poses a real risk of bankrupting me and my family.

I choose to fight their suit because I believe that the CAA and its chairman and its use of libel laws pose a danger to freedom of speech and the future of this country as an open society. Enough is enough!

Mr. Falter has sued me for comments I made on my own website.

My comments were made in the context of expressing my opinion about the situation where, last July, The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) attested that there had been no increase in anti-Semitism in Britain, and Gideon Falter and the CAA refused to accept the CPS’s verdict. Falter and the CAA insisted that anti Semitism was on the rise. Sky news reported on the discrepancies between the findings of CPS and the CAA.

mmmmmmmmmm
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Campaign Against Antisemitsm’s chairman Gideon Falter. I have made the decision to fight this crucial battle for freedom of expression even though this fight poses a real risk of bankrupting me and my family.

I choose to fight their suit because I believe that the CAA and its chairman and its use of libel laws pose a danger to freedom of speech and the future of this country as an open society. Enough is enough!

Mr. Falter has sued me for comments I made on my own website.

My comments were made in the context of expressing my opinion about the situation where, last July, The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) attested that there had been no increase in anti-Semitism in Britain, and Gideon Falter and the CAA refused to accept the CPS’s verdict. Falter and the CAA insisted that anti Semitism was on the rise. Sky news reported on the discrepancies between the findings of CPS and the CAA.

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Campaign Against Antisemitsm’s chairman Gideon Falter. I have made the decision to fight this crucial battle for freedom of expression even though this fight poses a real risk of bankrupting me and my family.

I choose to fight their suit because I believe that the CAA and its chairman and its use of libel laws pose a danger to freedom of speech and the future of this country as an open society. Enough is enough!

Mr. Falter has sued me for comments I made on my own website.

My comments were made in the context of expressing my opinion about the situation where, last July, The British Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) attested that there had been no increase in anti-Semitism in Britain, and Gideon Falter and the CAA refused to accept the CPS’s verdict. Falter and the CAA insisted that anti Semitism was on the rise. Sky news reported on the discrepancies between the findings of CPS and the CAA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2LgDoRqgN8

My article focused on the choice examined by Sky News between two accounts, one maintained by Falter and the CAA, an NGO that is dedicated to prosecuting antisemitism with “zero tolerance”, and the judicial approach of the CPS: a public body, subject to scrutiny and committed to impartiality.

My comments about the CAA are the basis of their lawsuit. I believe that I have the right to express my opinions on my own website: freedom of political expression is at the heart of freedom of speech. Mr. Falter claims that my criticisms of him do not amount to an opinion at all, and is seeking an order that would stop me from saying anything similar about him again, as well as paying him huge sums in libel damages and legal costs.

The CAA has contacted Jazz venues, community centres, concert halls and even overseas companies demanding that my events be cancelled. They have now escalated this battle and if they win this will ruin me financially.

I can not fund my defence alone.  I am obliged to ask every peace loving human being who cares about freedom and ethics for funds to help me defend this case. Fighting  this battle may cost tens of thousands of pounds. I am going to need some four figure donations to find the ludicrous amount required. But every single penny mounts up and please do give something.

If you have ever enjoyed my writing – join the fight. If you don’t agree with me yet support freedom of speech – my fight is your fight. If you support the right to point at the truth without being labeled ant-Semitic – this lawsuit is the battle ground,   my fight is your fight.

I appreciate any help you can give.

How Antisemitsm Became Noise

March 09, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Annoying-noise-001.jpg

The charge of ‘antisemitsm’ has become a noise — a whiny repetitive backgr

ound disturbance. We have learned to live with it, to accept that some people are just inherently upset and there is nothing we can do to change them or to help them out.

In Britain various Zionist organisations and media outlets dedicate themselves to threatening the British public. They torment the biggest political party in Europe and its leaders by tossing about their accusations  of ‘antisemitism.’ They crudely interfere with freedom of speech and the basic liberty to choose to oppose Israel and its tribal lobby.

Miraculously, it seems the Brits have become inured to the endless racket. By now they either ignore the constant moan or they are just irritated  with the producers of that perpetual noise. In any case, it is clear that despite their persistent slander of Corbyn, he is more popular than ever. At this point I suspect that it might be more damaging to Corbyn if they were to allege that actually Corbyn is Jewish, perhaps the son of a rabbi.

This week, every Jewish outlet around the world reported that Jeremy Corbyn was an active member of a ‘secret’ Facebook group made up of Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

They are referring to a tedious 280-page report released by David Collier, that details supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ and anti-Israel material shared by members of the group. For instance, one member of the group wrote that he had read “Mein Kampf,” and suggested that “Everybody should be forced to read it, especially Jews who have their own agenda as to why they were not liked.” I guess the so-called ‘people of the book’ want to decide what books are qualified for Goyim’s digestion. I take it that Collier & Co do not accept that outside of the Jewish ghetto people like to exchange ideas and may even agree to disagree.

Collier reports that Corbyn posted on the FB group’s wall on a number of occasions. In one comment, he praised the heroic Dr. Mads Gilbert, the Norwegian physician who treated patients in Gaza staying on even as it was subjected to a genocidal attack from Israel. Corbyn wrote  “huge respect” for “my friend” Gilbert and said he would be “delighted to invite him to Westminster.” Perhaps someone will be kind enough to explain to Collier and his brethren in the Jewish press that outside of Golders Green Dr, Gilbert’s actions are how we define humanism and Corbyn’s affectionate attitude toward such a humanist isn’t exactly a ‘crime.’

Britain’s MSM didn’t picked up the story about Corbyn and the secret FB group. It is too boring, and the Brits have had enough of this constant lament.

There is a practical side to this. Although the story tells us nothing about Corbyn and his non existent animosity to Jews, the perpetual  Zionist tantrum does serve to help us grasp Jewish culture and even Jewish history.

Let’s look for instance at Jennifer Gerber, the director of Labour Friends of Israel. She stated, “Mr. Corbyn has repeatedly failed to apologize to the Jewish community and to recognize the hurt caused by his past actions and associations. Now would be a good time for him to do so.”

What does Mrs. Gerber expect Corbyn to apologise for, his support for the oppressed and ethnically cleansed Palestinians? Or that he failed to operate as a FB inquisitor on behalf of the Lobby?  I’ll use this opportunity to point out to Mrs. Gerber that  Corbyn is doing pretty well without issuing such an ‘apology.’ Their actions might even be counterproductive, possibly the more Gerbers and Colliers castigate Corbyn as an ‘anti-Semite’ the more popular he becomes.

Joseph D. Glasman, head of political and government investigations at the ultra Zionist Campaign Against Antisemitism, accused Corbyn of failing to operate as a kosher police force.  “One of Mr. Corbyn’s slogans is ‘standing up, not standing by,’ but in this case he has not stood up but instead he actively joined in.”

In an interview published Thursday, Britain’s former Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, said he would refuse to hold talks with Corbyn until the Labour party showed “clearer signs of resolute action” against anti-Semitism within its ranks.

It is painful to watch a tribe ignore its past and repeat its historical mistakes. Surprisingly, their sole voice of reason is JC editor Stephen Pollard. Writing about his “Jeremy Corbyn dilemma” Pollard states:  “The truth is that we (The JC) could have such a story (Corbyn and his FB friends)  almost weekly. But I am acutely conscious that there is a perverse side to this – that the more it’s reported, and the more we go big on it, the more it is then discounted as just par for the course.”

Somehow  Pollard has sensed Goyim fatigue. Perhaps he can see that the Jewish fascination with ‘victimhood’ has made antisemitsm into white noise. Well done Stephen.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

The AZZ Freak Show starring Tom Pessah

March 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 By now, the discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor. 

By now, the discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

By Gilad Atzmon

If you want to understand how Jewish domination of the Palestinian solidarity movement has derailed the Palestinian struggle and caused complete paralysis of the movement, the explanation can be found in 972.com and Tom Pessah .

“Anti-Semitism is unlike most other forms of hatred” writes Pessah at 972.com today.  And why? Because  “it is both a form of bigotry and a false accusation.”  An Israeli Jew ‘pro’ Palestinian is telling us that while hatred of Jews is based on lies, other forms of hatred (misogyny, anti black, Islamophobia) must be factually supported. Can you think of a more telling example of morbid Judeo centrism?

“Bigotry is always bad,”  Pessah writes. And it seems that the tribal merchant has uttered what seems like a universal sentiment, until it becomes clear that again he is only referring  to his tribe. “It is bad for Jews inside the pro-Palestine movement .. it is bad for attracting Jews from outside the movement… and it provides plenty of ammunition for those seeking to silence Palestine solidarity activism by equating it with anti-Semitism.” Pessah’s  attack on ‘bigotry’ is only as it applies to Jews.

If self-love were a Jewish sport, Pessah would be an Olympic gold medalist . His Jews-only organisation, Jews For Racial and Economic Justice’s (JFREJ) new booklet, “does a good job of defining anti-Semitism as an ideology that uses lies and stereotypes about Jews in order to blame them for society’s problems.” Can  Pessah tell us how many goyim are members of the board of this exclusionary Jews-only oranisation? I looked at the booklet. I saw a lot of the usual ‘Zionism is not Judaism’ but I didn’t see  any attempt to explain what was meant by Jewishness. There were no references to the Jewishness of the Jewish State. The demography of the Ziocon club wasn’t mentioned in the booklet either.  What the JFREJ offers instead is the usual  lame  solidarity Hasbara — a desperate attempt to conceal the embarrassing fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and is supported by a vast majority of Jewish institutions.

In his article, Pessah, an Israeli Jew who dwells on Palestinian land, attempts to impose boundaries on the Palestinian solidarity movement. It is no secret that Jewish activists feel threatened by the Palestinian Right of Return. In fact, the entire Jewish solidarity project can be seen as an attempt to weaken the Right of Return by diluting its content with as many misleading slogans as possible; For example: ‘End of Occupation, ‘Colonialism,’ ‘settler colonialism,’ ‘Apartheid’ etc. These terms are designed to divert the solidarity movement from the essential Palestinian cause and, in practice, to provide Israel with the right to exist.

To read more about The Jewish Solidarity Spin.

Pessah admits that he was initially concerned by the Palestinian Right of Return. But his anxiety was allayed when some “non-Arab pro Palestinians” explained to him that “Palestinians returning to their homeland didn’t have to mean expelling the current Jewish inhabitants. From then on, I started to make the right of return a central part of my advocacy work.”

And so, once again, we see that Pessah’s ‘solidarity’ is primarily concerned with Jews. It was only when he understood that Israelis would not be affected by the Right of Return that Pessah decided to integrate the slogan into his pro Palestinian phrase-book.

An Israeli Jew is now an authority on the true meaning of the Right of Return? It makes me wonder if Pessah has confirmed that the Palestinians have now given up on their villages, cities, orchards and fields? If this is the case, then please, set up a meeting immediately with Pessah, 972’s editorial staff and Bibi Netanyahu, seal a peace deal and once and for all put this Israeli/Palestinian conflict behind us.

But then, what is the meaning of the powerful Palestinian chant, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free?”  Pessah offers an interpretation. “We meant freedom for everyone.” Apparently the Zionists didn’t buy his nonsense. So Pessah and his ‘solidarity’ group have “promised to stop using this chant.”

Pessah writes,

“We had gone out of our way to be sensitive, taking the claim of Jewish safety seriously, while ignoring the politics these (Jewish)  lobby groups were trained to promote.”

Precious, isn’t it?

The followers of my work know that I contend that the result of Jewish domination within some segments of the Palestinian solidarity movement can be described in very clear terms:

The discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

Pessah has been stupid enough to bring this devlopment to light.

“When one of our allies confused the terms ‘Jews’ and ’Zionists,’ I wrote a long letter to my colleagues about the differences between the two.” We do not need Pessah  or Ali Abunimah to tell us that Zionism and Judaism aren’t identical. Leibnitz has provided us with the relevant theory.

The problem is that we cannot determine where Zionism ends and Jewishness starts. Similarly, it is impossible to determine where Pessah and the AZZs end and Netanyahu begins. All of them care primarily about Jews and their interests, they may disagree on the details.

Pessah proudly informs his 972 Jewish followers how he helped to silence a Muslim preacher, Abdul Malik Ali,  because he had claimed that

(a) “Zionist Jews” were behind a series of violent incidents that were blamed on Muslims, including 9/11, and that

(b) these same Jews owned the media. “Since then,” Pessah writes,

 

“Abdul Malik Ali has never been invited back to speak, and we were taken seriously after demonstrating that we did not conflate anti-Semitism with opposition to Israel’s policies.”

The generally admired Alison Weir is also an “enemy” as far as Pessah is concerned.  Pessah apparently  takes pride in her expulsion from the Leading BDS coalition.

As usual, yours truly is the ultimate enemy. This time I am accused of being

“a Holocaust denier and an active proponent of Nazism.”

I guess it really gets under these tribals’ skin that I insist that we stop treating the holocaust as a religion and instead elevate it to an historical chapter subject to the usual open scrutiny. Pessah boasts about the call made in 2012 for my disavowal. As Pessah and others surely know, this call had zero impact on my work or my career. If anything, it confirmed to many much that I have to say about Jewishness, choseness and the duplicity inherent in the AZZ camp. I have never worked closely with any Jewish groups or solidarity bodies dominated by tribal interests. I am a writer. I wrote The Wandering Who, which is, without a doubt the best selling book on Jewish ID politics. The book digs into the corrosive work of Jewish solidarity groups. It explains the tribal ideology that drives Pessah, Mondoweiss JVP, 972 and future Judeo-centric bodies to come.

If Pessah weren’t offended by my work and did not try to discredit me, I  would take it as an insult and consider early retirement.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

 

The Green(stein)-Eyed Monster

February 27, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

envy.jpg

By Devon Nola

Tony Greenstein has been having a tough time, lately. He was recently expelled from the Labour Party for misbehaving. Actually, being antisemitic is what he was accused of. It’s ironic as I see him as one of the hardest working Jews to protect Jews. It’s his top priority. Or is it? At least equally important, if not more so, is over-indulging his clear obsession with jazz artist/philosopher, Gilad Atzmon. He credits Atzmon with the formation of his blog site so as to have a platform on which to display his, in my opinion, homoerotic sweet-tooth for Atzmon.

It’s Atzmon’s alleged anti-semitism that seems to get Greenstein’s knickers in a twist, but it’s worth emphasizing it is Greenstein who got the boot from the Labour Party, not Atzmon. Frankly, I don’t think Tony deserves it, either. As I said, it is the preservation of the Jewish reputation that drives Greenstein, so much so that he believes he gets to determine what is “real” antisemitism and he’s shifty enough to wrap it in a Palestinian flag. Tony likes to play the “good Jew”, but it is Atzmon who, for at least a decade, has been brave enough to dig deep into the nuances of Jewishness and what it means to be/identify as a Jew. Atzmon isn’t interested in protecting Jewishness. He is more about liberation and seeking truth. Atzmon has a horse in this race, after all. He was born in Israel and its only natural for truth-seekers to want to understand whence they came and how it relates to the world around them. Atzmon rarely, if ever draws conclusions or offers solutions. As a philosopher, he refines the questions. For some reason, Atzmon’s questions make Greenstein nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

Greenstein’s latest meltdown has him hurling accusations of holocaust denial at Atzmon . Apparently, Greenstein doesn’t want the philosopher to pose questions about or defend anyone’s right to delve into this historical event. Like many others in his tribe, he wants the primacy of Jewish suffering never to be questioned. Is it possible he knows what should be concealed?. He has a lot of rules regarding what should and shouldn’t be discussed which is rather peculiar as he fancies himself a fighter against fascism.

I watched Greenstein’s interview with George Galloway and his hypocrisy was tangible (https://youtu.be/n1PTeqbSXLM). Galloway quoted the Jewish sage, Hillel, “that which you hate, do not do to others” to which Greenstein seems to be in full agreement with. In fact, this little profundity also graces the top of Greenstein’s Twitter page. Yet, he makes a career out of doing the opposite. His Twitter feed is one ugly tweet after another as he rabidly makes personal attacks on anyone he doesn’t like, calling them Zios (short for Zionist), anti-Semites, racists, or what appears to be the ultimate blow, an Atzmonite and then blocks them. I have a second a account which allows me to indulge a guilty pleasure of observing Tony come off the rails on a daily basis with the periodic “Free Palestine” thrown in for good measure. But none of these verbal abuses carry as much venom as those lobbed at Atzmon. See, Atzmon doesn’t follow Greenstein’s rules of (Jewish) engagement, which are to stick to the script of criticizing Israel and Israel, only. Zionism is fair game as well, but don’t dare make any connections between the Jewish state and Jewishness. That’s when he starts foaming at the mouth. It’s important to mention the full Hillel quote; “That which is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah, the rest is commentary. Go forth and study”. This is the big reveal, as it is my assessment Hillel’s quote was not a universal statement but rather instructions for how Jews should be treating other Jews. Who else reads the Torah? . If one lives within a cultural or religious ghetto, it is your own kind that are your neighbors. So, it seems somewhat fitting Greenstein favors this quote. However, he seems to have some difficulty staying within even the narrow parameters this quote provides. For Tony, it only applies to those he deems kosher, his fellow AZZ activists. Hillel also offers us this pearl of wisdom: “if I am not for myself, who is for me”. This isn’t a universal attitude, this is possibly the core philosophy of Judeo centricism. It seems to depict Israeli attitude toward Palestinians and African migrants. It also sheds light on the ugliness of JVP and the rest of the AZZ community, who favor going after genuine seekers of truth like Alison Weir, Richard Falk and of course, Gilad Atzmon. Sadly, Jewish voices for peace becomes Jewish voices for Jews.

It’s my belief he is envious of Atzmon, to a suffocating degree. No one really pays attention to Greenstein. Maybe he wants to be Atzmon or at least garner the accolades of Atzmon, but I don’t think this is possible. It takes some talent. He would have to leave the safety of his tribe, leave the ghetto, become an ordinary human and take a long hard look in the mirror. The evidence suggests he’s not wired to do this. As soon as the pathetic Labour kicked him out, he completely reverted to type. He became a Jewish victim, the rabbi’s son. He seems to use this line of defense every time he gets into trouble. So, instead, he will continue to devote a blog site to the man he secretly admires, lamenting over that which he cannot attain.

Then They Came for Tony Greenstein

February 19, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Then they came for Tony Greenstein ...

Then they came for Tony Greenstein …

by Gilad Atzmon

Following the outrageous expulsion of AZZ extraordinaire Tony Greenstein from the Labour Party, the equally vindictive Labour Against The Witchhunt (LAW) published this embarrassing tweet:

Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 11.46.21.png

According to LAW’s logic, Greenstein should have been vindicated due to the fact that he is:

1.       a Jew

2.       a Rabbi’s son

3.       an offshoot of holocaust survivors

The above tweet is no doubt a glimpse into the morbid universe of Jewish privilege. If Greenstein’s line of defence is built upon him being Jewish, a Rabbi’s son and blood relation to Holocaust survivors where does it leave the rest of the British working class. How many John Smiths can hide behind the blood of their Jewish mother, their rabbi papa or their holocaust  credentials?

As if the situation isn’t funny enough, the banal minds at LAW  decided to quote Martin Niemoller’s “First they came for….”

Considering Greenstein being a dedicated witchunter approved by the ultra Zionist BOD and Jonathan Freedland, Guardian of Judea’s prime hasbara merchant, Niemoller’s poem needed a bit of a tweak which I was happy to provide:    

First Tony Greenstein came for Israel Shamir, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Israel

Then Tony came for Deir Yassin Remembered, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not from Deir Yassin

Then Tony came for  Richard FalkJohn Mearsheimer,  Samir Abbed RabboMakram Khoury MachoulAlison WierNahida IzzatNorman Finkelstein,  Ken O’KeefeOren Ben DorPaul EisenGreta Berlin, Lauren Booth, Laura Stuart, Gabi WeberIan Donovan, Gerry Downing and Socialist Unity and  many others.

And I did not speak out because this confirmed everything I had to say about the corrosive impact of the Jewish solidarity spin.

Then they came for Tony Greenstein — everybody was laughing with satisfaction except myself because I pretend to be an empathic goy…   

 

Guardians of Judea

February 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

That which appears as harsh political polarity within the Jewish world is more than often a mere camouflage.

That which appears as harsh political polarity within the Jewish world is more than often a mere camouflage.

by Gilad Atzmon

In The Wandering Who I argue that Jews appear to disagree on many things but rather often they agree on the most ‘important things’. I contend that that which appears as harsh political polarity within the Jewish world is more than often a mere camouflage.

To learn more read this.

Though it is clear that Jewish hawks and Zionists are collaborating enthusiastically with the so-called ‘progressives’ only rarely do we manage to find evidence of such teamwork. Ahead of the American election we, for instance, were shocked to learn that the so-called solidarity activist Max Blumenthal fabricated a story on the 2012 Benghazi attack on the pages of the Guardian in order to divert attention away from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s blunders in Libya at the time that his papa Sidney Blumenthal was financially invested in reconstruction and regime change in Libya. Hillary Clinton was delighted by Max’s spin. She wrote to Sidney ‘your son is a Mitzvah.’

This Morning the Guardian of Judea is exposed once again.  Ahead of his Labour kangaroo court trial coming Saturday, notorious AZZ* Tony Greenstein is desperate to list his kosher credentials and actions on behalf of the Hasbara league. Greenstein did it numerous times before. When he was suspended from the Labour Party he bragged about being praised by the ultra Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD). This morning Greenstein once again quotes Jamie Slavin of the same BOD. “Whilst his views (Greenstein’s) on the situation in the Middle East are a complete anathema to me, to his credit, he has led the opposition within the PSC to the rising levels of anti-Semitism.” The Ultra Zionists Slavin confirms that which we all know. Greenstein has been working hard to sabotage the Palestinian solidarity movement in the name of his core tribal interests.

Today, thanks to Greenstein, we were delighted to learn that the Guardian Executive Editor Jonathan Freedland was stupid enough to trust Greenstein not to post his personal exchange where they discussed some tribal concerns such as: Paul Eisen, Jeremy Corbyn and yours truly.

All in the family...In the email, Guardian’s Freedland repeats, almost word  for word the BOD’s line of thought.

All in the family…In the email, Guardian’s Freedland repeats, almost word  for word the BOD’s line of thought.

In the email, Guardian’s Freedland repeats, almost word for word the BOD’s line of thought: “despite our obvious disagreements, I have always had respect for the integrity of your position.  I remember your admirable stance on Gilad Atzmon for example.”

Some may wonder what made Freedland trust Greenstein’s integrity considering the latter’s embarrassing unlawful past. Maybe Freedland learned his lesson. I, on my part, am pretty delighted to see that self-identified Jews can fight on pretty much every topic, but so many of them are united around my disastrous impact on their exceptionalist tribal project. I guess that my capacity to unite the Jews is remarkable, I may as well be their king.

I will also use this opportunity to wish Tony Greenstein luck on his hearing this Saturday. I do believe that the Labour party should readmit him immediately. Tony Greenstein is not an anti-Semite. He is a proper kosher merchant as the BOD and Freedland confirm above. The suggestion that Greenstein is an anti-Semite only gives a bad name to anti-semitism.

If  Elias Davidsson wants to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

 *AZZ-Anti Zionist Zionist

Bibi and Jewish Dialectic

February 15, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Disdain for the law and a lack of ethics are deeply entrenched within the Israeli elite and in its political leadership in particular. 

Disdain for the law and a lack of ethics are deeply entrenched within the Israeli elite and in its political leadership in particular.

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned this week that the Israeli police have  recommended indicting PM Netanyahu for bribery. Some Israeli commentators opine that this move by the Israeli police is the end of Netanyahu or at least the beginning of his end. I am not convinced that this is the case, Bibi has proved to be both resilient and resistant. In any case, Netanyahu won’t be the first Israeli politician to face trial and possible imprisonment. His predecessor Ehud Olmert was sentenced after being convicted of fraud, breach of trust, bribery and tax evasion.

Disdain for the law and a lack of ethics are deeply entrenched within the Israeli elite and in its political leadership in particular. Yet, unlike Bibi and Olmert, Moshe Katzav wasn’t really interested in mammon, bribery or fraudulent activity. When Katzav was president, it turned out that predatory sexual behaviour was his thing. He was exposed and paid the price.  On 22 March 2011, Moshe Katsav became the first former President of Israel to be sent to prison when he was sentenced to seven years with two additional years probation for rape, indecent acts, sexual harassment and obstruction of justice.

Disregard of elementary ethics, it seems, is so common in the Jewish State political universe  that Wikipedia decided to dedicate a special page to this social phenomenon titled “List of Israeli public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors.”

This begs the question, what is it with the Jewish State and its criminality?  Wasn’t Zionism a promise to fix the Jews, to make them productive and ethical or as an early Zionist phrased it — ‘people like all other people’?

In fact, the Zionist promise may actually explain why so many Israeli politicians have ended up behind bars or at least faced indictment. The early Zionist promise expressed a desperate Jewish wish to morph into a civilised nation, to depart from Jerusalem and bond, once and for all, with Athens.

In my latest book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I return to Leo Strauss’ realisation that while Jerusalem is the city of revelation, commandments, mitzvoth, a set of litigations that prescribes what to do and what no to do: Athens is the birth place of philosophy, ethics and aesthetics. While in Athens we think things through,  in Jerusalem  we follow “naaseh v’nishma” (Hebrew) — ‘do first, understand later.’ Jerusalem, as such, is an anti ethical sphere for in Jerusalem the ethical judgment is replaced by rigid litigation, regulation and obedience.

In Israel, no doubt we see some deep institutional criminality within the political sector. But on the other hand, the fact that Israeli public figures end up behind bars and on a routine basis suggests that the Zionist inclination to revolutionise and amend the Jew is still there. Not many states see their leaders jailed one after the other and not within the context of a coup or a radical regime change.

Zionism can be seen as an intense dialectical tension between the ‘imaginary Athens,’ that phantasy of Jewish spiritual and ethical metamorphosis, and the ‘Jerusalemite oppressive reality,’ the rigid form of Talmudic obedience, litigation and political survival subject to legal loop holes.

As far as I can tell, this dialectic doesn’t exist in the Jewish diaspora’s institutional universe. Let’s look at a few examples. Lord Greville Janner was exposed in British media as an alleged arch sex predator.  New allegations about Lord Janner keep surfacing in Britain. A closer look into Lord Janner’s timeline reveals that at the time he was allegedly engaged in multiple incidents of predatory behaviour he was the president of the Board Of Deputies of British Jews  (BOD), a body that claims to ‘represent British Jews.’ Lord Janner was practically the head of British Jews but  Lord Janner  was also the founding patron and the chair of the Holocaust Memorial Trust. To date, not one of these Jewish bodies has apologised or expressed any concern over their association with Lord Janner.

Recently we learned from the Jewish Chronicle that Jeremy Newmark, a dubious labour politician as well as an ardent Zionist was ejected from his seat as chief executive of the Jewish Community Leader after an audit revealed that he “he deceived the organisation out of tens of thousands of pounds and misled charities about the cost of projects he worked on.” The JC further revealed that the leaders of the Jewish organisation were engaged in an intensive cover up. They apparently didn’t see a duty to inform the British public that Newmark had a failure in his ethical record.

If you think that what I describe here is only a Zionist diaspora symptom I may disagree with you. JVP, Mondoweiss and other Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist organisations have been following the same Jerusalemite path, using every trick in the Hasbara book and attempting to silence critical voices that do not fit within their Judeo Centric ‘solidarity’ program. These solidarity bodies have subverted the terminology of the solidarity movement in order to eliminate the core of the Palestine plight, namely the Palestinian Right of Return.  They have employed Talmudic Herem (excommunication)  tactics against those who dared think freely or creatively (Alison WeirGreta Berlin, yours truly and even Miko Peled). Here in Britain the Jewish ‘Free of Speech on Israel’  uses the  same tactics to ensure that the discourse of the oppressed is dominated by the sensitivities of the oppressor.  Sadly,  it isn’t Athens, ethics or the universal that fuels these Jewish so called ‘progressive’ organisations, instead they are motivated by the most banal crude tribal concerns.

I guess my verdict may be disappointing to most peace lovers as it is devastating to me.

Much as many of us hate Israeli aggression and despise Zionism, it is possible that when it comes to the Jews; Israel, and its phantasmic Athenian ethos is slightly ahead of the diaspora self identified political Jews  both Zionist and the so called ‘anti.’  This may explain why the real and most profound  whistleblowers; people who contributed significantly to the understanding of the essentiality of Israel, Zionism and Jewishness have been Israelis and ex Israelis, people like Israel Shahak, Uri Avneri, Gideon Levi, Shlomo Sand,  Israel Shamir and the Palestinian Sayed Kashua.

Despite its endless list of sins, Zionism has brought to life a form of Jewish dialectics that has produced a significant body of dissent and a greater understanding of the problematic aspects of choseness in general and Jewishness in particular.

If  they wants to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

No Fly Zone over Israel

February 13, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Syria possesses the ability to impose a no fly zone over northern Israel.

Syria possesses the ability to impose a no fly zone over northern Israel.

Interview with Gilad Atzmon on recent news by Alimuddin Usmani

http://lapravda.ch/

Alimuddin Usmani: On the 10th of February, Syrian anti-aircraft units managed to use an old Soviet anti-aircraft missile built in the sixties to shoot down an Israeli F-16.

 What is the significance of this military incident?

Gilad Atzmon:  I do not know much about the type of anti air missiles the Syrians used.  It seems that the Israelis were also perplexed by Syrian anti air capacity. But what we do know is that the Israeli F-16 wasn’t in Syria’s air space. It was well within Israel, in fact not too far from Haifa’s sky. This means that Syria possesses the ability to impose a no fly zone over northern Israel. This is undoubtedly  a positive development. It may even restrain Israeli aggression.

AA: According to Israeli minister Bennett, “Israel must act systematically against the Iranian octopus“.

GA: The reference to Iran as an octopus is new to me. I have seen the octopus imagery used to portray the idea of Jews having  domineering powers.  The image I am referring to is one of octopuses  decorated with a Star of David and holding the planet in their hands.  I do wonder what led Minister Bennett to use such a metaphor. Is it the fear of being encircled and eventually squashed by mighty Iran or maybe Bennett was simply projecting, attributing his own characteristics to the Iranians. This question can remain open. I can say with certainty that since Bennett is a religious Jew, he won’t eat calamari any time soon and he probably doesn’t even know what he misses.

bennet and clamari .png

What is fascinating  about the incident is that for years we have seen Israeli politicians vow to attack Iran. We have seen Jewish leaders worldwide push for military actions and sanctions against Iran. The facts are undeniable: Israel feels surrounded and Bennett seems to admit it by employing the octopus metaphor.

AA: Recently a French-Syrian woman was forced to quit a song show due to some comments she made a while ago on Twitter criticizing the French government’s stance on terrorist attacks.

 What is you take on the above?

GA: This farce highlights the duplicity at the core of so-called multi culturalism and ‘diversity.’ We love and care for the ‘other’ but only so as long as the other conceals his or her otherness. We love Muslims as long as they pretend to be Jews. I see this form of  progressive  ‘diversity’ as an anti humanist oppressive force.

AA: Ahed Tamimi, a young Palestinian activist was arrested on the 19th of December for slapping an Israeli soldier who was standing outside her home. She is still in prison, awaiting a trial. What is your opinion about this girl?

GA: I am afraid that my linguistic abilities fall short in describing my admiration for this Palestinian teenager. I am not impressed by the Palestinian solidarity movement. And now many see the solidarity movement as a controlled opposition apparatus, largely dominated by Jewish organisations and outlets  (JVP, IJAN, Mondoweiss etc.). This has led to a discourse of the oppressed  shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressors. Instead of talking about the Right of Return we have been subject to a barrage of notions, ideas, tactics and political tools that are set to limit the resistance and in practice, facilitate recognition of the Jewish State and its right to exist (to read more  http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/5/16/the-jewish-solidarity-spin).

Ahed Tamimi represents uncompromising resistance. She wants her land to be free, and I don’t doubt  that her wishes will come through

AA: Tell us something about your next gigs.

GA: I am on my way to Barcelona. I am writing to you while seated in a plane. Tonight I will be talking about my new book Being in Time. I will probably be asked about Catalan independence in light of my  post political theory although I have nothing to say about it. I do not really understand the Catalan situation nor do I know how or where to locate it within my criticism of the current global dystopia, I hope that by the end of the night I will have learned  more about Catalonia. A lot of my ideas were born out of intense exchanges with the many people I have encountered while being on the road. It is the differences that  spark thinking and originality, concepts that are seriously lacking in the monolithic tyranny of correctness that is imposed on us.

The Banality of Good pt. 7: Global Tribes vs. National Pride

February 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

If global capitalism is a problem, we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer.

Global Tribes vs. National Pride

Clara:   I have just been reading a Canadian Jewish news bulletin and all the tribal features are there: the community life with kosher catering, the private Sunday schools with their curriculum of Jewish culture, Judaism and the Holocaust, the comment on why we shouldn’t sympathize with Palestinian children and the trip for adolescents to Israel where each of them is supposed to find out ‘what Israel means to me’.

In my opinion one of the flaws of biologically oriented identity politics is the belief that ‘the differences between the respective identity groups are bigger than the differences within the group’ as the ‘Saker’ defines ‘racism’. I am not sure that supporting Israel’s politics is really in the best interests of all the Canadian (US-American, British or German) Jews or even in the best interests of the Israelis themselves. But as members of the tribe they are all on board of the same ship.

Is that what you mean when you argue that identity politics are a tool of globalization and that  the ‘identitarian tribes’ are used to support Neocon / Zionist policies?

Gilad: It is actually simpler than that. The emergence of more and more ghetto walls between us the people dismantles our ability to fight for our universal needs, let alone see the universal for what it is. In the name of diversity, we create a fragmented human landscape that is blinded to its fragments.  This tribal construct is indeed ideal environment for Neocons, mammonites as well as our compromised politicians.

Clara:   In ‘The wandering who’ you write that compassion has evaporated in Jewish thinking. I often feel it is the same in Germany: we do not sympathise with the Greek people and their poverty in connection with the introduction of the Euro, we think they ought to be punished for ‘being lazy, living above their means and not doing their homework’. The same goes for the poor in our country. And we mourn the victims of terrorism in Germany and France but we are not really interested in the terror victims in St Petersburg, Beirut or the terrible suffering in Yemen. And the one time our politicians seemed to show compassion by opening the borders for refugees, the many Germans who, like myself, welcomed that chance had to realize the double standards which were behind it: supporting the wars and economic policies that caused people to leave their homes and not adequately addressing the social and security problems the influx of refugees caused at home.  

Does this lack of compassion have to do with the ‘incapability of mourning one’s own fate’ we mentioned in the beginning of our conversation and which seems to be a common feature in Jewish and German mainstream thinking?

Gilad: The lack of compassion is a symptom of chosenness and exceptionalism . Chosenness and exceptionalism are indeed attached to Jewishness but not only. It is hardly a secret that the selfish manner of thinking is embedded in capitalist thinking. The next question you may want to ask yourself is what is the connection between Jewish culture and capitalism. This is obviously a loaded question that has many answers. Marx believed that the two were intrinsically tied. Werner Sombart agreed with Marx. Max Weber didn’t.  My point, as always, is that we must be able to discuss these matters in the open.

Clara:   I agree, and it is actually a kind of selective compassion with double standards. But there is also the aspect of collectively getting stuck in the victimized self-image connected with identitarian world views.
Anyway, let’s be a bit more specific here. In a talk you gave in Berlin you said that for example the international feminist movement was used to promote wars for the rights of Muslim women. And just recently Angela Jolie posed for NATO exactly for that reason. You also gave the example of gay rights. When it comes to attacking Russia, gay activists from many countries show their concern about gay rights there. So we are led from one fragmented campaign to the other and forget about more important issues.

But what is the alternative? In that talk you seemed to argue that we should return to think in terms of national interests instead. You seem to want to replace the concept of ‘identitarian tribes’ by returning to the idea of strong national states and fixed borders. Isn’t that a very dangerous right-wing concept? Doesn’t that lead to new chauvinism, the persecution of ethnic minorities and more?

Gilad:  This is a good question. To start with, I am not a political activist. I do not offer solutions or alternatives. As mentioned before, I am a philosopher, I am refining questions rather than repeating readymade answers.  I indeed often argue that if global capitalism is a problem (and it is a problem), we may have to consider the idea that equality within borders is a possible answer. Now, let’s talk about Nationalism and National States. I contend that Nationalism isn’t necessarily a problem unless celebrated on the expense of others. In the 1940’s people and nations were minced in the name of lebensraum, in the Neocon dominated global universe we do the same in the name of Coca-Cola, Gay-Rights and fake democracy. I argue, therefore that ethical thinking which is basically an Athenian aspired domain is the remedy.   

Clara:   If there is a definition of left wing, it is concern for social issues and anti-imperialism. Many people argue that politics addressing these issues need a strong national state, i.e. Bill Mitchell  (fiscal policies), Paul Steinhardt (social welfare policies – paywall) and Professor Michael Hartman (national elites are still strong). While others advocate ‘more EU’ to address social issues on an international level, these people claim that such a project is bound to fail, even if tried which currently is not really the case; the EU is not a social project. The right wing parties want ‘less EU’ as well, but tend to support neo-liberal policies.
But again – slippery grounds – people quickly ‘stone you’ when you start talking about the role of the national state. When Sarah Wagenknecht from the Left Party criticized Merkel’s open-border policy, she was accused of socializing with the right-wingers from AfD.

Often accusations of working together with right-wing people (Nazis!) replace an open exchange of argument. I think this is a dangerous development.

Gilad: Again, you are pointing at the Jerusalemite tendency, that tyranny of correctness that dictates a manner of speech, a pattern of ‘correct’ thinking, newspeak. Orwell recognized that that tendency is inherent to Left politics which is fascinating considering the Athenian dialectic nature of Marx thinking. We are living in an upside down world –The anti Fascist are often intrinsically fascists. The anti Zionists are mostly AZZ (Anti Zionist Zionists) and the Athenians who see it all are castigated subject to constant abuse. Yet, the people are not buying into that reality. Brexit proves that Brits want to see a change. Trump won because Americans are frustrated (surely, they are more frustrated now).  Far from being surprising the popularity of Corbyn in Britain and Sanders in the USA can be realised as a similar symptom of frustration with the current identitarian dystopia. Both leaders are nostalgic anti identiatrian characters.  The meaning of it is simple. We are moving into a realm that transcends beyond left/right banal binary. To be in time is to grasp the post political condition.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

The Banality of Good Pt. 5 – Pre TSD, Zionism and Empire

February 01, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

eistein Palestine_edited-1.jpg

 By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   After having read Exodus as a teenager I was convinced that after the Holocaust finding a new home in Israel and fighting anyone who threatened their existence was quite an understandable reaction of the Jewish people.

Gilad: Do you mean killing Arabs and taking their land in the name of Jewish suffering?  If this is what you mean, you should bear in mind that Arabs and Palestinians in particular had nothing to do with Jewish suffering. In fact, in Palestine and in the Arab world Jews were living in peace and harmony with their Muslim and Christian neighbours.

As I explained before, with a manifestation of Pre TSD the so-called ‘victims’ envisage an imaginary hostile reality. The only way to prevail is, to act first, to fight anyone who might be in the way. Next we see the erection of ghetto walls, the prospect of peace and harmony evaporate. In short, welcome to the contemporary dystopia.

Israelis today, for instance, are genuinely tormented by a future nuclear conflict with Iran.  Yet, instead of resolving this volatile situation trying to calm the tension, Israeli politics and Jewish Lobby activity actually escalate this tension. The reality on the ground is devastating. The entire region is under a threat of a war that can easily deteriorate into a nuclear conflict.

Zionism was initially a promise to ‘civilize’ the Diaspora Jews by means of ‘homecoming.’  We, I include myself in order to simplify the argument, were supposed to evolve into ‘people like all other people.’ This surely meant living in peace with our neighbours. This project clearly failed.

We are told by most anti Zionists that Zionism hijacked Judaism. I believe that the facts on the ground suggest that it is (almost) the other way around.

Zionism that was initially an anti Jewish movement (some would say anti-Semitic) was hijacked by Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism). It was once again the chosenness (Jewish exceptionalism) that abolished the initial affinity towards the universal. It was Jewishness that guaranteed that Israelis would be unlike any other people. It was Jewishness that retained chosenness at the core of the Zionist thought.  By the way, this exceptionalist shift within early Zionism was subject to a vivid debate.

Clara:   Wasn’t Einstein still an old-school Zionist, when he wrote to Chaim Weizmann in 1929 that if Jews could not coexist peacefully with Arabs, “then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering?”

 Gilad: Indeed and this is the crux of the matter. Einstein realised already in 1929 that hostility towards the indigenous is sadly embedded in Jewish culture. Einstein could see as early as 1929 that the Zionist movement was already making the Palestinians into the new Goyim.  This was probably devastating for him and it clearly produces a devastating understanding of the Jewish continuum.

 Clara:   You argue that it has basically been the belief in their chosenness which has led to the many disasters in Jewish history.

Now this is not a Jewish ‘speciality’. I have always been wondering how Europeans (and later US-Americans as well) felt entitled to conquer the world, to take the land, exploit the resources and manpower, impose their culture and religion on foreign peoples and killing them when they were in the way. This feeling of racial and cultural superiority has always puzzled me. And it wasn’t and isn’t only greed. Many of us were and are true believers in the mission of promoting ‘western values’ all over the world be it for religious or secular reasons. And even those of us who are critical of what is going on still tend to display a kind of colonialist attitude. I admit I have been asking myself more than once ‘What is it in Christianity and western culture as a whole that has made it so disastrous for the world?’

Gilad: Let us closely examine the notions of chosenness. To start with chosenness is not necessarily a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when you celebrate your chosenness on the expense of the other.  For orthodox Jews Judaic chosenness is interpreted as a moral burden. It is the duty to serve the world with an exemplary ethical behaviour (please do not ask me how many orthodox Jews follow the above). While in Judaism chosenness can be interpreted as a moral duty, in secular Jewish culture it is often realised as a sense of exceptionalism that is racially oriented. The Zionists, for instance, believe that they can ‘return’ to a land after 2000 years and to reinstate their Biblical reign of power. Let me assure you, not many Italians claim for acres in Britain based on the Roman’s reign in the land more or less around the same time. But the anti Zionists are following exactly the same path. The Jewish pro Palestinian activists do believe that they are in a very special position within the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. They are the ones who give the rest of us a “kosher stamp.“ The Jewish anti Zionists have in practice established a realm of Jewish privilege at the core of the discourse that is set to fight the supremacist abuse invoked by their brethren.   I came to the conclusion that Jewish ID politics is basically a collection of different ideas that facilitate self love.

However, you are correct. European colonialism, Slavery, British imperialism and contemporary Ziocons are all forms of chosenism. The problem that we face with Zionism or Israeli brutality is that it celebrates that form of exceptionalism in front of our eyes, yet, we can’t really talk about it.

Clara:   So the real tragedy is that, if Israel’s enemies united and if they defeated the country, all the fears would come true – the self-fulfilling prophecy of a new ‘Holocaust’, which could have been prevented by true ‘self love’, learning from the past and making peace in time.

Gilad: I feel very comfortable with that. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State. If we want to grasp the actions of Israel, its lobbies and world Jewry we must dig into the meanings of Jewishness and Judaism, we must ask who are the Jews. We must delve into Jewish culture and ideology. We should become familiar with Jewish survival strategies.

Clara:   Speaking of unveiling Jewish lobbies: You have just mentioned contemporary ‘Ziocons’. What or who do you mean by that?

 Gilad: Zioncons are those Neocons who send young American and Brits to die for Zion in the name of Coca Cola.

Clara:   For Zion? They fought/fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, some in Syria, it’s an empire of more than 760 military bases worldwide …

 Gilad:   Pretty much so. Zionism is no longer a geographically limited nationalist ideology. I often argue that the Neocon school points at a clear global shift from ‘a promised land’ to ‘a promised planet.’

Clara:   So that without the Neocons the state of Israel would not be so strong and powerful, look at Trump’s support of making Jerusalem the capital of Israel? And without the support and lobbying of rich and powerful Zionists the Neocons couldn’t control US-American politics the way they do?

 Gilad:  I wish I could say that. As I write these lines I read about Bibi Netanyahu successful visit in India. Israeli strategists know that America is on its way down. They are already zigzagging their way into the corridors of power of the new emerging powers. Russia, India and China.

Clara:   At one point you ask in ‘The Wandering Who’ (p.25, kindle edition) „How did America allow itself be enslaved by ideologies inherently associated with foreign interests?” Another one of your ‘anti-Semitic’ sayings.

 Gilad: Indeed this silence of American political establishment, media and academia demands our intellectual attention. I often argue that Jewish power is the power to suppress discussion on Jewish power. I believe that the 1st step in the right direction is to unveil the meaning of this power, to grasp that which they work hard to conceal and suppress.

Clara:   Could we see the Neocons and the Zionists as two not necessarily very brotherly siblings with similar mindsets working together against a multipolar world? A world where nations solve their collisions of interests in peaceful negotiations with respect to international law? A world where the people living in a country are more important than the wish to control some distant part of the world or the supposed interests of Israel? I have found that for many issues I am concerned with I have to talk about the American Empire. But since the Neocon –dominated Empire is entangled with Zionism, and because Jewish elites are mixed up not only with Israeli politics but with the politics of Empire, criticising these kinds of policies is still very difficult: as soon as you touch Jewish or Israeli influence the question of being a Nazi or an anti-Semite lingers behind every corner. It is hard to think straight in such an environment!

Gilad:  Once we break out of the tyranny of correctness we grasp that Neocons are practically Ziocons, in other words, the Neocons and the Zionists are one. Why is it so difficult to discuss it? Because Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.  Jewish power is maintained by the so called ‘Left’ (new Left really) I will prove it to you. Who was it who tried to silence you recently when you questioned the campaign against Atzmon, was it the Zionist federation, the Israeli embassy? Not really, it was the so-called  ‘lefty’ Rubikon and the ‘anti’ Zionist Elias Davidsson. Let me tell you, we are now very close to the bone.  A continuum has been established.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

The Banality of Good Pt. 4: Anti-Semitism, Racism and cultural identity

palestine-holocaust-children.jpg

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara: Let’s talk a bit more about anti-Semitism. The same people who warned me off have accused you of being an anti-Semite. They quote you as writing: ‘Actually I carefully carve out the contempt for the Jew in me’. Now I understand that an anti-Semite is a person who discriminates against Jews as a race. So are you a racist who hates his own race instead of a different one?

Gilad: I believe that Jewish race is an empty signifier. In ‘The Wandering Who’ I deal with those who identify politically as Jews. I do not deal with ‘the Jews’, I do not touch issues to do with race. I do not engage with Judaism (the Jewish religion) either.  But here is a question you and me and everyone else should ask ourselves: How is it possible that me hating the Jew in me concerns so many Jews who have nothing to do with me? Is it possible that my so called ‘self hatred’ is a concern for other Jews because it reveals a deep problem at the heart of Jewish Identity most self identified Jews work hard to conceal? I know many gay self haters, they are not subject to pressure by their identitarian community. Self hating Brits are getting the pass ticket. Even self hating Catholics get away with their ‘crime.’ But Jewish self hatred seems as a vile crime. We should ask why? Why was Jesus nailed to the cross? Why were Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa subject to vile Herem? The answer is probably in the Old Testament. The prophets were probably the Athenians amongst the Jerusalemites.

Clara:   I could say about myself that ‘I carefully carve out my contempt for the Protestant in me’, the meanness, the exaggerated work ethos, the inability to relax and just have fun once in a while … Nobody would call that racist, these are deeply-embedded cultural features, some of them I embrace, some of them I try to overcome.

Gilad: This is indeed a good place to start. Why you can hate the protestant in you, yet I can’t despise the Jew in me. It is hard to deny the fact that, despite Jews not being a race, Jewish politics is always racially driven. This obviously applies to Israel, the Jewish State, and its discrimination of Palestinians (look at Israel’s Law of Return), black and Goyim in general, but it also applies to the Jewish anti Zionists such as JVP. You, Clara, can subscribe to JVP (Jewish Voice of Peace), you can donate money but you will never become their secretary. Why? Because you are not racially qualified. I guess that me pointing at this makes me into a public enemy.

Clara:   How do I ‘qualify’ as a Jew according to the JVP rules? Must I be born one or is converting to Judaism enough?

Gilad: You don’t, but I guess that conversion to Judaism is an option.

Clara:   It seems to me that it is very hard to distinguish between ‘Jewish race’ and ‘Jewish culture’. You talk of ‘culture’ and are called a ‘racist’. You call JVP racist when I could change my religious beliefs to become a member … It is all very confusing …

Gilad: I do not know whether it is hard to distinguish between race and culture. However, what I do instead is pointing at a racist culture at the core of different Jewish political schools.  But, let’s take it further.  Do we really have to convert into Judaism in order to criticise the Jewish state? The meaning of it is devastatingly simple. The discourse of the oppressed is shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressors …

I am critical of all forms of racism and biologically oriented politics, and this includes Jewish racism as well as Nazism!

Nazis prosecuted Jews for being Jews. Jews were subject to persecution for what they were rather than what they did.  Such a transition is indeed the death of innocence. But in the Jewish State Palestinians are discriminated for not being Jews.  I do insist to put reason into play until such an exercise is officially banned.

Clara:   So you see no basic difference between the way Palestinians are treated by Jews in Israel and the way the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany? But weren’t that perfectly rational pseudo-scientific definition of race and the skilful bureaucratic and ‘industrialized’ organization of genocide racism brought to heights beyond any human imagination? And wasn’t thus the Holocaust the unique event of genocide in history?

Gilad: This is a good question that should be discussed openly and not with a gun to your head.

But let’s extend this question; was the Holocaust more unique than the Holodomor? Is two years in Auschwitz more unique than 70 years in Gaza? I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I do not think that we need to answer these questions. As I show in my book ‘Being in time’ this is the all point of being Athenian as opposed to being a Jerusalemite. Athenians are dedicated to the primacy of questioning. The Jerusalemites impose answers by means of commandments and Mitzvoth (Political Correctness). I believe that these questions must be open and subject to constant examination and revision.

Clara:   That makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of questions to be raised. For one it is well known that racist theories were not a unique Nazi thing. There was a strong Anglo-Saxon scientific movement promoting the killing or at least sterilisation of the ‘unfit’  and it is very probable that Hitler read a lot of that kind of literature while writing ‘Mein Kampf’ in prison.

And some people also would surely like to know why the Allies didn’t do more to prevent the Jewish genocide. They quite certainly were informed about what was going on. And they could have bombed the railways.

Gilad: Exactly. If you really want to talk about Hitler and Nazism, I’ll be frank with you. Race and racism weren’t invented by Hitler or the Nazi Party. As I mentioned before, Zionism that promised to ‘make the Jews great again’ was born 30 years before Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and Jewish exceptionalism being racially driven was born 3000 years before Zionism.

I am the last person to advocate biologically driven politics. In fact I criticize New Left Identiterianism for being Hitlerian. I am equally critical of White identitarians. But when you read ‘The Destruction of Dresden’ by David Irving you grasp the extent of the genocidal intent in the minds of Anglo-American’s policy makers.

I want to live in a world where ideas can be exchanged freely and ethical thinking is explored with no limit. In fact, we are having this discussion now because those elementary liberties are fading rapidly in front of our eyes. This entire Holocaust phobia has proven to pave the path to a new banality of evil that is as blind as the old one.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

The Banality of Good pt.3 – Revising History

January 28, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Photo: Enno Rueter

Photo: Enno Rueter

 Revising History

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   You are quoted as saying: “I think that Israel is far worse than Nazi Germany”.

Gilad: My comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was limited to a discussion on collective accountability in democratic vs. authoritarian regimes. I argued that since Israel defines itself as the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ its barbarian policies reflect on the Israeli society as a whole, something that can’t be said about Nazi Germany. Once democracy is abolished, collective accountability is removed!

 Clara:   Obviously literature dealing with the question ‘what is it in German history that has led Germans into two disasters in the 20th century?’ could fill a lot of library shelves.

For years we were taught that World War I was the Germans’ fault alone, now we know that it was more complicated. And the collective accountability of the Germans of that time and consequently the accountability of Germany as a nation for everything that happened in World War II is still presented as fact in a host of films supporting the narrative of the unique German guilt and explaining it with Hitler’s and the Germans’ dangerous ideology and madness alone.

Now you argue that this narrative is not valid because Nazi Germany was not a democracy. 

Gilad:  This is true.

Clara:   I can see your point. While we have to accept the fact that unbelievable atrocities actually did happen and our parents were involved, we also have long discovered that Hitler was supported by a majority of the national elites. Therefore it is important to keep in mind that there were powerful interests behind the national-socialist project, not only those German people who happily cried ‘Heil Hitler’ and were indoctrinated by the Nazi education system.

Besides, Hitler kicked out the very people in his movement who took the word ‘socialist’ seriously, at an early stage of his ‘reign’.
And there’s another thing: the Germans 
couldn’t have sustained the war as long as they did without the help from foreign, especially US-American, bankers and industrialists. We have also found out that the western allies would have loved to see Germany destroy the Sowjetunion before being defeated herself. 

Gilad:  I must admit that the carefulness that I hear in your voice and the manner in which you describe an historical chapter that happened more than 70 years ago, suggests to me that instead of talking about the past, we better discuss the fear of talking about the past.  What are we afraid of? What are you afraid of? Who plants this fear in us and why? What method was used to plant this carefulness? And obviously who benefits from us being afraid to look back?

Clara:   Those are some really good questions to ask. Disturbing questions, too. One thing is that even though Nazi Germany was not a democracy, I wouldn’t want to let every German of the time off the hook. There is such a thing a personal responsibility. And a lot of Nazis did not take it. On the contrary – in Western Germany they were to be found in a lot of powerful positions and others went straight to the USA.

Gilad: I totally agree here. Rather than collective responsibility we are talking about personal accountability. This principle wasn’t really applied after the war, neither by West Germany, the USSR or the Americans.
Clara:   But I guess the big fear is that for a lot of people questioning the narrative means justifying Hitler and the Nazis, which means that, if we go on doing that, we will soon have a ‘4th Reich’. Never trust a German. Racist exceptionalism and ‘Weltherrschaft’ are part of their DNA.

And there are that kind of right-wing Germans, I do not want to be found ‘in bed’ with, who are revising history and demanding free speech with the aim of making Germany great again by expelling foreigners and burning their homes.

Gilad: I do understand what you are saying. I am not impressed at all by many so-called ‘revisionists’ who actually happen to be as dogmatic as their foes and actually prefer to dictate their own narratives. Therefore, I am not for ‘revisionists’, I am for revisionism. For history reinstating itself as a dynamic and elastic realm as opposed to a fixed dogma. Needless to mention that I reject all forms of bigotry and violence.

Clara:   Something which seems to frighten certain people. But I must admit that I felt quite offended when I was called a potential Nazi for demanding to take your ideas seriously and not just dismiss you as a dangerous ‘Holocaust denier’. 

Gilad: I guess that you are referring above to Rubikon’s Jens Wernicke and Elias Davidsonwho worked hard to defame me yet did little but exposing themselves for what they are for real. I sadly must point out that their kind of behaviour is exactly the type of Nazi authoritarianism we were set to oppose. It is pretty amusing to find out that the so called ‘anti Nazis’ perform some of the most problematic Nazi symptoms. But it is hardly surprising. The Anti Fascists are often operating as AFF-Anti Fascist Fascists. The same can be said on anti Zionists, most often they perform the AZZ tactics. They are nothing but Anti Zionist Zionists.  

Clara:   I don’t think that anti-Semitism is part of my DNA. I would like to understand what really made the Nazis great and investigate whether it is true that we are on the way to a new fascist regime and especially new pogroms against Jews, as some people seem to fear when they watch the rise of right-wing populist parties. I have the impression that, if there is a group of people in contemporary Germany, it is not the Jews but the Muslims. And this enemy has been systematically established in the media since 9/11.

Gilad: That is exactly part of my ‘affair’ with the Holocaust and with the past in general. I insist that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. History is a revisionist adventure, and at the core ethical thinking for revising the past offers an opportunity to envisage a better future.  In the open I am against all history laws.  I oppose the Holocaust or any other chapter in the past becoming a religion, a dogma. Living in Europe for more than two decades I am really upset by the emergence of such history laws.

Clara:   You are talking about a Holocaust religion or dogma. What do you mean by that?

Gilad: It is a fixed narrative like that lost all elastic and dynamic qualities. It is there to sustain the primacy of Jewish suffering and European guilt. However, the problem is that this primacy has matured into a pretext for global conflicts with no end. Look at Palestine. Look at the Neocon wars: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran. Once again we do not think in ethical terms. We dismiss the universal appeal. My point is clear and simple. If the Holocaust is the new religion, then let me be an atheist.

Clara:   So would you argue that the ‘Holocaust religion’ is the origin of Israeli Pre TSD you talked about at the beginning of our conversation?

Gilad: … not at all. Pre TSD is embedded in the Jewish thinking. Here is an old Jewish joke for you:

A Jewish telegram: ‘Begin worrying, details will follow …’. And it is far from being a Jews only affair. Anglo America post 9/11 politics is similarly sustained by self inflicting terror – We are tormented by phantasmaic  prophecies and work hard to make these prophecies being fulfilled.

Clara:   We are walking on extremely thin ice here. Anyone who dares to touch the official Holocaust narrative is easily accused of being a Holocaust-denier, which is against the law not only in Germany. You obviously do not deny the Holocaust; as you have explained, you reject its function as justification of current policies and politics. Everyone who really reads your books or listens to your interviews can easily find that out. Besides, you have not been found guilty of such a crime by a German court.

Gilad: Not only I wasn’t found guilty, I have never been questioned by a single law enforcement authority worldwide about anything I have ever said or written. My activity is well within the boundaries of the law, in your country and every other country. My books are available world-wide including in Germany and Israel. However, I better mention it once again. I am not fearful of the past, including my own past being questioned or revised.

Clara:   Still, you are accused of ‘Holocaust denial’, a reproach which has been used to discredit journalists, i.e. KenFm, or a whole movement, i.e. ‘Friedenswinter’ (a German peace initiative started in 2014) and everyone who is in contact with those accused.

I think there are very powerful interests behind this. Promoting peaceful relationships with Russia, criticizing the wars Germany is supporting world-wide and from our territory, i.e. by allowing the US to operate their drones from the airbase Ramstein, provokes quite heavy negative reactions from those in power. There is a strong connection between revising the Holocaust history and questioning current German politics. Unfortunately those who try to split the critical movement have been quite successful.

Gilad: If they were successful, they wouldn’t react in panic as they do. They are in the wrong side of history and they know it. An adequate study of WWII within the historical context of English Speaking empire will reveal that those who burned Hamburg, flattened Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki have continued doing the same thing in Korea and Vietnam. They kept supporting Israel’s expansionist program, they brought total destruction on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Iran seems to be next. An appropriate historical discussion will detect an institutional negligence of human life at the core of Anglo American politics.  The Holocaust together with German guilt are there to prevent us from witnessing the crimes that are committed in our names in front of our eyes. For the Americans and Brits it is much easier to build Holocaust museums instead of looking back at slavery or the crimes of the empire, especially because these crimes are far from being resolved yet.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

Kick To The Left

January 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

Labour Against the Whitchhunt has expelled a third of its associates.

I am pretty satisfied these days. For the last decade my name has been continuously smeared by Jewish ethnic activists.  I have been called a ‘Nazi,’ a ‘Fascist’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ despite the fact that genuine Left groups and prominent humanists have vigorously supported me all along. Genuine Leftists, it seems, understand that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and decorates its F-35s with Jewish symbols, we are entitled to ask who are the Jews, what is Judaism, what is Jewishness and how all these terms relate to each other! Evidently these questions terrify some Jewish ethnic activists.

In December I delivered a speech at a Marxist NRhZ gathering at the Babylon Theatre in Berlin  despite the outraged protests of some German AZZs*.  Here in Britain, the comical Labour Against the Witchhunt  (LAW), a body that was formed to ‘tackle’ the current Zionist purge of the Labour Party, expelled a third of its supporters last Saturday for the ‘crime’ of being associated with Gilad Atzmon.  The notorious AZZ caricature Tony Greenstein reported yesterday that LAW voted to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in LAW.  Why?  “Led by Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan, Socialist Fight has a theory that the Jewish Question is still relevant today.”

Tony Greenstein and Jackie Walker, both suspended from the Labour Party for being ‘anti-Semitic’ despite identifying politically as ‘Jews,’ have formed their own Jewish led anti witchhunt group so they could execute their own witchhunt!

It appears that the ultra Zionist David Rich may as well be correct. We seem to have a ‘Jewish problem’ within the Left.  First, ardent Jewish Zionists conducted an intensive purge of the Labour Party that led to the expulsion and suspension of thousands of party members, including some iconic legends such as Ken Livingstone, who was suspended for telling the truth about Zionism’s collaboration with Nazism. On top of that, the bodies that claimed that they would tackle these problematic Labour expulsions are themselves self identified Jews and are even more tyrannical than the party they were set to critique.

Suspension from the Labour Party is a somewhat vague procedure, but the mass expulsion by LAW was inimical to the democratic and judicial processes. LAW’s actions fit rather neatly with Biblical excommunication or, more precisely, with Hebraic Herem culture. Socialist Fight has disclosed that on Friday evening, just a few hours before LAW’s scheduled meeting to decide upon the exclusion of Socialist Fight, tribal merchant Tony Greenstein informed Socialist Fight, on behalf of LAW, that the meeting was cancelled. Evidently, Greenstein’s grasp of democracy is cloned from the one practiced by the ‘only democracy in the Middle East.’ In the Jewish State, millions of Palestinians are not allowed to participate in the democratic process that determines their fate. In our kosher Labour Anti Witchhunt group, Greenstein inveigled to exclude Socialist Fight from participating in the political decision deciding their fate. The devastatingly simple conclusion is that within Kosher LAW, Socialist Fight are the Palestinians.

We wouldn’t anticipate ethical, democratic or principled behaviour from Tony Greenstein considering his embarrassing past. But why has Jackie Walker been a part of this travesty? Does the ex Momentum activist also adhere to these tyrannical, anti democratic, unethical procedures?

Jackie Walker was suspended from the Labour Party for insisting that the Holocaust should convey a universal message. She was brave to point at the prominence of Jews in the slave trade. However, the great Walker should come clean and tell us what is it about Socialist Fight that positions them beyond the pale. I have a feeling that I know the answer. Jackie operates politically ‘as a Jew’ (as well as Black). She is privileged, she can speak about Jews and slavery, she can universalise the Holocaust, but, for one reason or another,  she does not want to allow Goyim such as Ian Donovan and Gerry Downing to examine the Jewish question in dialectical Marxist terms. They should take their authentic socialist fight somewhere else.

Many years ago, when I came to terms with the gross duplicity at the core of the Jewish Anti Zionist agenda, I consulted with a very clever Jewish friend of mine who had studied the leftist narrative of the Jewish Diaspora for years. He told me, “Gilad, in the Jewish world you always kick to the Left!” Avigdor Lieberman kicks Bibi, Bibi strikes Herzog, Herzog slums Peace Now, Peace Now kicks the AZZs: JVP, Greenstein and Walker. Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, are not inventing anything new, they are simply following the kosher protocol. They kick to the Left, they booted Socialist Fight thereby re-enacting the classic Herem ritual. Ian Donovan, Gerry Downing and their supporters are just ordinary Goyim (The Jews within Socialist Fight identity as socialists rather than ‘as Jews’). Downing and Donovan are not going to follow the kosher protocol. They won’t kick to the Left. Why? Because they are the Left. They may be the only Left that remains in this country.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

*AZZ – Anti Zionist Zionist

Witch Hunters United – Gerry Downing Speaks with Gilad Atzmon

January 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

1994_edited-1.jpg

Gerry, you were accused of Anti-Semitism.  Along with thousands of other Labour Party members, you were labelled anti-Semitic and expelled from the party for expressing universalist ideas and opposing all forms of racism including Jewish racism.

Q: What is anti-Semitism?

GD: Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews as Jews. Full stop. Nothing else. It is not criticism of the state of Israel or Jewish institutions.

Q: Under this definition of anti-Semitism are you or your organization anti-Semitic?

GD: No. Not Gerry Downing or Ian Donovan nor any member or supporter of Socialist Fight, past or present, are in any way anti-Semitic. We are members of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and are well-known defenders of Palestinian rights and opponents of the state of Israel. There is not a single act or political stance alleged that is in any way racist or anti-Semitic except in the minds of those who want to appease the Labour Party bureaucracy of Ian McNichol. These same people also attempt to prove that they are not revolutionary socialists and agree with McNichol that Trotskyists should not be afforded any democratic rights in a throwback to the Great Purges in the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s.

Q:  You are part of a radical Left group called Socialist Fight. Can you brief us shortly about this group and its principles?

GD: It is best summed up in the first point of the Where We Stand document on our website:

“We stand with Karl Marx: ‘The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. The struggle for the emancipation of the working class means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies but for equal rights and duties and the abolition of all class rule’ (The International Workingmen’s Association 1864, General Rules). The working class ‘cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other sphere of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society’ (Marx, A Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843).”

Q: We met today because I learned from the British and Jewish press that Labour Against the Witch-hunt (LAW) a newly formed body, has decided to expel half of its members or more precisely, to kick out Socialist Fight from its ranks. Is that true?

GD:  The ostensibly broad campaign, LAW, was launched on 21 October 2017 after professor Moshé Machover was auto-excluded, and, as the Labour Party Marxists reported, he was only “one of a long line of socialists, Corbyn supporters and defenders of Palestinian rights expelled or suspended on bogus charges of anti-Semitism”. Socialist Fight participated in the formation of LAW, through Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan and contributed to the discussion and to collection, as Socialist Fight expected to participate in LAW’s work.

Soon after the launch, one Lee Rock began a vitriolic witch hunt against us on LAW’s Facebook page, claiming we were anti-Semitic and should be expelled from LAW. The three remaining LAW Steering Committee members, Tony Greenstein, Stan Keable and Jackie Walker (Peter Firmin had resigned), duly obliged by auto-excluding us without a hearing or right to appeal, the very practice the group had been set up to overturn in the Labour party. We were instructed not to attend the next LAW meeting as we were no longer members and we were blocked from the LAW Facebook page.

We did, however, turn up early for the meeting on 2nd December with 3 supporters and, as Tony Greenstein reported, the meeting was “effectively ambushed by a small Trotskyist grouping, Socialist Fight” i.e., our band of 5 managed to persuade the meeting, some 24 at its height, to refuse to accept the undemocratic, not to say autocratic, decisions of the triumvirate. We were accepted back in and reinstated to the Facebook page by Tony Greenstein.

Q: According to the Jewish press, LAW is led by Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein both of whom identify politically ‘as Jews.’ Both Greenstein and Walker were suspended from the Labour Party for being anti-Semitic. However, they believe that while the slur of anti-Semite is mostly delusional, on rare occasions they can decide it is real. Where do you think Greenstein/Walker set that kosher demarcation line?

GD: it is my belief that there are two key questions to understand in this. 1. the motivations of Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, which are slightly different and 2. The motivation of Jack Conrad, the leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain/Weekly Worker which has influence in the Labour Party Marxists, led by Stan Keable, another member of the LAW Steering Committee.

On the first point the key is found in the statement Tony Greenstein issued on March 22, 2016 made after he got a letter from the Labour Party informing him he had been suspended. He wrote the following:

“I can only assume, in the current climate of media engineered hysteria over ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party and amongst Corbyn supporters, that it is related to this.  I can think of no other reason. If this is the case what is involved is a witch hunt of anti-Zionists using the cover of anti-Semitism since even the Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD) and other Zionists have acknowledged my role in combatting Gilad Atzmon, a notorious anti-Semite who used to be associated with the Palestine solidarity movement.”

So, suspended from Labour for ‘anti-Semitism’ he (Greenstein) tried to ingratiate himself with the pro-Zionist witch hunters by pointing to his own role in witch hunting Gilad Atzmon. Today he is in a de-facto bloc with Zionist/Blairite witch hunters against Socialist Fight.

Jackie Walker is slightly different, she largely rejects the politics of identity and is more cosmopolitan than Greenstein. She also strongly champions black rights. She is repelled by the outright revolutionary politics of Socialist Fight as she revealed during the Labour Representation Committee AGM in 2012, when she verbally abused me for heckling a speaker who was defending the role of the ANC in the Marikana massacre after I had made a motion condemning them.

Jack Conrad suffered a major embarrassment at their annual Communist University when Socialist Fight exposed his narrative on the Russian Revolution, which he promotes in conjunction with the Swedish academic Lars T Lih. They put forward the revisionist theory that Lenin’s April Theses was of no particular significance, and that Kamenev, Zinoviev and Stalin were doing fine before Lenin returned in April and had only to make a slight adjustment, despite Lenin’s powerful condemnations of their capitulation to the provisional government. And then his accusation of treason against Kamenev and Zinoviev when they went public with the plans for the October insurrection, thereby putting all their lives in immediate danger.

Q:  In the recent LAW meeting Greenstein and Walker reportedly said that “making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the US or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.” I guess that Walker and Greenstein believe that Jewish politics and mammon are beyond criticism. Can you tell us which political school may adhere to such a peculiar approach? Is there any Left ideology or working-class politics that excludes criticism of Jewish mammon and influence?

GD: Of course, that ideology is Zionism. I can do no better than to quote Daniel Waterman, the famous author and anti-Zionist activist. His mother, Ruth Kupferschmidt, survived the Holocaust. He wrote on the LAW Facebook page in refutation of this cowardly capitulation:

The following statement (from Tony Greenstein) therefore makes for uncomfortable reading:

“‘Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the United States or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.’

(To which Waterman replied:) NO NO NO! We all know that there are many Jewish millionaires and billionaires in the US. We also know that many of them are involved with determining policy with respect to Israel. We even know that many of them are outspoken supporters of Israel. Why on earth is it then taboo to speak about this openly?

Yes, mentioning the power of the Jewish lobby was and remains a tactic of antisemites. But that does not make the statement, or the reality, inherently anti-Semitic. The reason why ought to be clear to anyone with half a brain but let’s just spell it out: because not all Jews are billionaires and not all Jews are Zionists or supporters of Israel.

So, why has this issue become such a point in this group? First of all we can consider quite legitimate concerns about the possibility of any discussion of ‘Jewish billionaires supporting Israel’ being interpreted as anti-Semitic, but then that is also exactly why this group was created, to defend others who are legitimately criticising Israel ‘and making comparisons to Nazi Germany’ from being accused of antisemitism.”

Q: You and your political group were expelled by Greenstein/Walker in a non-democratic manner. You were pushed out despite the fact that the democratic vote of LAW members opposed your expulsion. What can we learn from this development about the authoritarian tendencies of Greenstein and Walker?  Do you believe that people of that type can present a better future for Britain’s working people?

GD: It really is shocking that the LAW Steering Committee are pursuing these utterly undemocratic and unprincipled manoeuvres against us. If we are all agreed that the way that John Lansman closed down the democratic structures of Momentum was utterly wrong and justly criticised him for that how can they do the same themselves? How can either John’s Lansman’s Momentum or the far smaller LAW group of Tony Greenstein fight to democratise the structures of the Labour Party when their own structures and practices are so undemocratic? And what kind of a new society of social and economic equality, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” can be forged with these methods? Do what I say, don’t do what I do, as Joe Stalin and Ian McNichol hypocritically might say.

Q: What is next? I understand that on Saturday Greenstein/Walker are planning another bogus meeting in an attempt to overrule their previous defeat. How can we help you? Can we attend the meeting? Where is it?  

GD: The Labour Against the Witch hunt meeting was due to be held at 12 noon on Saturday 6 January in the Calthorpe Arms, 252 Greys Inn Road, London, WC1X 8JR. Please get there by 11.30.

However, on the one hand, Tony Greenstein tells us the landlord of the Calthorpe Arms has rung him up cancelling the meeting: “There will therefore be no meeting on Saturday, the meeting is cancelled”. Stan Keable, the LAW Secretary on the other hand, tells us that a nearby alternative venue has been found and we can all come. Stan Keable: “We regret that Calthorpe Arms has cancelled our booking, but the meeting will go ahead in a nearby alternative venue. Please come to Calthorpe Arms, 252 Grays Inn Road, at 12 noon, and we will direct you to the nearby alternative venue.”

We will move a simple motion along these lines:

“We defend the right of Socialist Fight Comrades to attend and participate in the Labour Against the Witch hunt and reject the slurs of anti-Semitism directed against Socialist Fight and its two leading comrades, Gerry Downing and Ian Donovan.”

Hot Off The Press: British Anti Witch-Hunt Group expelled half its supporters

January 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

witch hunt.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

When you think that British ‘Left’ has reached rock bottom you wake up to learn that this political comedy act has no limits.

We learned today that the ‘anti witch-hunt’ labour group LAW (Labour Against the Witch-hunt ) has expelled half of its members over ‘anti-Semitism.’

Times of Israel reports today that LAW has cut ties to Socialist Fight because of the views of its members. Socialist Fight is accused of being “supportive of controversial Israeli-born author Gilad Atzmon.”

Needless to mention that I am thrilled by all of that. I enjoy being supported by proper radical left groups; people who adhere to universal principles of equality and human brotherhood. Despite the fact that in my entire life, I have never been a member of any political body or party, I can clearly see that my writing is now making a change.

If you are wondering what it is that I am saying that pushes LAW leaders Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein, two self identified (political) Jews, over the edge, to the point that they themselves have decided to act, in the open, as witch hunters, I will provide a brief answer.

I argue that if Israel defines itself as a Jewish State we must ask who are the Jews, what is Jewishness and what is Judaism. We should then proceed and  examine Israeli politics and Jewish lobbying in the light of the above questions. I basically argue that Zionism is just one symptom of Jewish choseness. I actually identify the exact same exceptionalist tendencies in Jewish Left and in particular in Walker and Greenstein’s political act. To add to my sins, I am also responsible for the popular adage “by now, we are all Palestinians.” Like the Palestinians we are not allowed to articulate the true nature of our oppression.

No one could articulate this observation better than Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein. In the minutes of the LAW meeting, Walker and Greenstein apparently said “Making a connection between the number of Jewish billionaires in the US or who is Jewish amongst the richest sections of society and imperialist support for Israel is anti-Semitic.”

For Walker and Greenstein pointing at a concentration of mammon and political influence as the core of Zionist power is a ‘hate crime.’ For Walker and Greenstein a principled universal socialist position based on dialectical materialism is crude ‘antisemitism.’

I am delighted as well as amused to see myself, an immigrant saxophonist at the centre of this ridiculous political storm. But I may assure you that none of this is new to Brits. They have seen it all before, they know about the People’s Front of Judea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

If they want to burn it, you want to read it …

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk). 

Kosherising the 9/11 Truth Movement

Watzal und Dershowitz

December 20, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

watzal dersh.png

By Gilad Atzmon

Two days ago, I revealed that Ludwig Watzal, a  supposedly  pro Palestinian German  writer, attempted to defame me and my work by doctoring my words and fabricating quotes.

Some of my supporters who follow Watzal’s work approached Watzal and asked him for clarification.

Watzal’s initial response was to dismiss their questions.

“This is all trash written by a Zionist agent,” Watzal answered.

Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 16.54.40.png

 So again, I have been labeled a ‘Zionist agent,’ just for pointing at the depth of duplicity in the midst of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement.

But then Watzal was shown screen shots from my book The Wandering Who? that proved that he had completely invented my words. The German disinformation merchant changed his tune.

Watzal had to admit that he had lifted the quotes from no other than ethnic cleanser advocate, Prof.  Alan Dershowitz’. You may ask why a Palestinian ‘solidarity’ activist would turn to Dershowitz as an ‘authority.’ You would expect Watzal to know that Prof. Noam Chomsky described Dershowitz as ‘a remarkable liar and slanderer.’

But our story doesn’t end there. Watzal, the hapless imbecile managed  to dig an even deeper hole. Watzal wrote to a respected solidarity activist who had questioned his fraudulent accusations that:

“In Social Science, It’s legitimate to quote another author like I did.”

Watzal is correct. In social science as in all scholarly work, one may certainly quote others. But one is also required to reference the origin of any quote.  Failing to do so is generally called plagiarism.

Watzal managed to fail three times in a row.

1.    Watzal plagiarised  Dershowitz by  failing to credit  Dershowitz as the source of his quote. Instead, he presented the ‘quotes’  as if they were the product of his own research.

2.    Watzal published doctored and fabricated quotes without checking them.

3.    The cover up. Watzal obviously knew that his quotes weren’t  the product of his own study. He could easily have asked for time to check his work  and eventually retract it but Watzal decided, instead, to spin and slander in the most disgusting and fraudulent manner.

In an Athenian universe, any of the above would be enough to strip Watzal of  his academic titles.

This is not the first time I have come across a lack of integrity  within the Palestinian solidarity movement. And the question I ask myself is what is it about the Palestinians and their plight that attracts these fraudulent characters? Whether we find an answer to this or not, we can certainly see why the solidarity movement has led nowhere. It was set to lead us astray.

Zionism as a master-race ideology

Source

Zionist Invention of Iran Threat – An Interview with Prof. Yakov Rabkin

July 26, 2015

Good evening from the Editorial Team of ProMosaik e.V.

We have already talked about Iran in the last days, after the historical Iran Deal in Vienna, achieved after 12 years’ of work this 14th of July 2015. The only State opposing to this deal is Israel which talks about how dangerous Iran is for the Zionist State.

We have talked to Prof. Yakov Rabkin of the University of Montreal about this invention and culture of fear on which Zionism is based. We thank him a lot for his time.

We had already published his great article about Iran before the deal, when Netanyahu spoke in front of the US-Congress about the so called “Iranic threat”.´

Dr. Milena Rampoldi: How has Israel invented the Iranian threat and with which means does Israel try to keep it for ever?

Prof. Yakov Rabkin: In an earlier article I outlined the history of that invention. Israel used its allies and agents to promote it and make it into an international issue. Thus Israel was able to distract world attention from the Palestinians, and deal with them with impunity.

No less importantly, this fabrication offered Israeli society another “existential threat”. Apparently, the non-existent Iranian bomb has now been replaced by another “existential threat”  – BDS, international peaceful campaign to apply boycott, divestment and economic sanctions to make Israel change its policy toward the Palestinians. Some Israelis believe that their society would implode without these existential threats. Fear is what holds it together.

MR: How are the real relations between Jews and Iranian people in Iran which has a big Jewish community?

Prof. Yakov Rabkin:While I have no direct knowledge of the situation of Jews in Iran, it appears they are doing no worse than other Iranians. There have been no violence or specific repressive measures reported.

MR: How can a refusal of Zionist ideology help us today to promote the friendship between the Jews and the Muslim peoples in general and Iran in particular?

It is important to emphasize that Zionism has been a rupture and a rebellion against Judaism. Most Jews opposed it when it emerged in the late 19th century. One must reject antisemitic conspiracy theories and understand that Jews around the world, whatever their vocal support Israel, have no influence on Israeli policies. They should not be held responsible for what Israel is and does. Then one could see that Judaism and Islam are the two closest religions to each other, that Jews lived a lot better in Islamic than Christian realms and that many classical works of Judaism are written in Arabic. Moreover, Jews with their experience of antisemitism in Christian countries can help Muslim to cope with the growing Islamophobia.

MR: What would you say to the German Chief of the Zentralrat der Juden, Dr. Schuster, who said  the Iranian deal is dangerous for Israel and for the stability of the whole Middle East?

Israel fans around the world repeat whatever they are told to say by their Israeli masters. With all due respect to functionaries of Jewish organizations in Germany, they may be less well informed than their government that signed the Vienna agreement. This kind of support for Israel is not innocent. Recently it was revealed that Jewish organizations were covertly used by the Israeli army to spread its message during the attack on Gaza in 2014. Obviously, those Jewish functionaries who agreed to do this expose rank-and-file members of their organizations to reprisals, including violence. This is particularly grievous since most Jews, at least in the United States, support the Vienna agreement with Iran. Moreover, American Jews support it more than the average Americans.

This shows the growing estrangement of American Jews from Israel, which only strengthens the point I made in my answer to your prec[v?]ious question. In view of this, one wonders who exactly represent functionaries of Jewish organizations: Jews in their countries or the State of Israel.

MR: How long will people take to understand that Netanyahu’s position is wrong. What can we explain to these people to change their position?

Netanyahu relies on support from one of the main donors to the Republican Party. One can expect the Prime Minister’s credibility to remain sterling in those circles and their media. Elsewhere, he appears a lot less credible. But at issue is not his personality. Israel’s political mainstream is behind Netanyahu in denouncing the Vienna agreement. This is part of the inexorable shift of the Israeli public to the right. And this leads to Israel’s growing isolation in the world, including isolation from Jews in major countries.

Prof. Rabkin, photo from his publisher, Fernwood.



Yakov Rabkin’s devastating critique of Zionism: it is opposed to Jewish tradition and liberalism

By Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss
June 27, 2017

Last year one of the most important books on Zionism, ever, was published in English by Pluto: What Is Modern Israel? by Yakov Rabkin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal. The central theme of the book is how Zionists have exploited Judaism and western traditions to offer Israel as a liberal democracy when it is actually a nationalist colonialists project hanging on by its paranoid fingernails.

Rabkin has expertise. He is a religious academic, and it is his Judaism that has brought him to embrace universalist cosmopolitanism when it comes to interpreting history in our century. Given his background, he has been able to defy what he calls the “climate of intellectual terror that surrounds the Question of Israel.”

Published on 20 May 2016, Pluto Press, pb, £16.99

In reading his book, it struck me that the greatest service I could provide to a reader is to roll out Rabkin’s deadly insights about the nature of the “Jewish state,” and the essential antagonism of Judaism and Zionism. What follows is a long sequence of Rabkin’s observations and findings, all of which aim to end that climate of terror and allow westerners to speak freely about the Zionist era. Let’s go.

Zionism has four essential goals, Rabkin says.

1, “to transform the transnational Jewish identity centred on the Torah into a national identity like that of other European nations.”

2, “To develop a new vernacular language.”

3, “To displace the Jews from their countries of origin to Palestine”.

4, “To establish political and economic control over Palestine.”

Thus, Zionism is a case of “imposed modernization typical of western colonialism,” a policy rejected by both Arab and traditional Jewish populations.

Israel’s self-ascribed identity as a ‘Jewish state’ brings  legitimacy to the renewal of ethnicity as the criterion for belonging

Politically, Israel has been able to rely on the solid support of the elites of Western nations, in part due to Zionism’s colonialist aims:

“The essentially European character of this recently established settler colony, which resembles in many ways the United Kingdom’s former colonies throughout the world, also explains Western support of Israel. Its self-ascribed identity as a ‘Jewish state’ brings de facto legitimacy to the renewal of ethnicity as the criterion for belonging.”

Rabkin notes the popular trend we’ve been chronicling:

“Western partiality toward Israel suffers from a democratic deficit: contrary to their elites, the majority of the citizens of the Western nations consider the state of Israel as a threat to world peace.”

The distinction between left and right wings of Zionism is far less meaningful than is Zionism’s hostility to liberalism:

[I]t would surely be more useful to speak of a division between liberal cosmopolitanism and ethnic nationalism. Zionism, meanwhile, is fundamentally hostile to liberal cosmopolitanism, which explains why the Zionist “left,” in Israel and elsewhere, has gone largely over to the “right.” What unites the two camps—their conviction of the legitimacy of Zionism—is more substantial than the stylistic or tactical differences that divide them.

Rabkin links the rise of Zionism with the secularization of Jewish identity in modernity, and the Jewish aspiration to normal experience among the nations:

Jewish secular identity acquired a socio-cultural dimension: those who consciously rejected Judaism could preserve, at least for a while, a specific language (Yiddish), and a few cultural markers. This new identity was conjugated in a wide range of political options, often of socialist or nationalist inspiration. By consummating the break with tradition, the concept of the secular Jew, at variance with the traditional Jewish vision, made it possible to redefine the Jews as a “normal people” and thus became the cornerstone of Zionism.

But it was a special definition of peoplehood.

The concept of the Jewish people that Zionism relied on had little in common with traditional definitions of the term. Religious scholars know that: “the Torah, and only the Torah, makes of the Jews a collective identity.”

Jewish tradition has long put exile at the centre of Jewish existence. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch:

Torah… obliges us, until God shall call us back to the Holy Land, to live and to work as patriots wherever He has placed us, to collect all the physical, material and spiritual forces and all that is noble in Israel to further the wealth of nations which have given us shelter.

But the new secular Jewish identity gained popularity in Eastern Europe and especially Russia, and it “eliminated the religious—and thus normative—dimension of Jewish identity and retained only its biological and cultural dimensions.”

At the same time as it countered Jewish religion, Zionism also countered liberalism: “Zionists consider a liberal, multicultural society as a major obstacle to the expansion of a Jewish national conscience.”

Zeev Sternhell:

 

“To accept the liberal concept of society would mean [for Jewish nationalist intelligentsia] the end of the Jewish people as an autonomous unit.”

Thus, Rabkin says: “The main threat to Zionism is European liberalism, which offers Jews an individual choice but, according to many Zionists, denies them the opportunity to live a true national life.”

Zionism is at root a response to challenges of liberalism: “far more Israelis take up residence in the world’s liberal democracies than citizens of those countries immigrate to Israel.” That goes for Russian Jews too:

“Out of the 1.2 million Jews who emigrated from Russia at the turn of the 20th century, a mere 30,000 made Palestine their destination, and of those, only a quarter remained there.”

The Jewish tradition of exile is so strong that when Soviet Jewry was allowed to emigrate, Israel was required to carry out “a full scale diplomatic campaign in an effort to prevail upon its allies (primarily the United States and Germany) to limit immigration to their countries of Soviet Jews.”

Rabkin says Zionism was pioneered by assimilated, secular Jews who felt that emancipation had freed them to penetrate the highest levels of European society, and found they were rejected, so they sought a nation like other nations out of this frustration. Torah had been the basis of Jewish unity till Zionism. But when they went back to the land of Israel, “they would no longer need to follow [Torah’s] precepts, for their national consciousness, as experienced in the land of Israel, would be sufficient to sustain that unity.”

Israel allowed these Jews to forgive themselves assimilation: because they were assimilating into “normal” history:

“Only the state of Israel offers the Jews the ultimate freedom to reject totally their spiritual heritage and become a ‘normal people.’ The new Israeli identity appears to facilitate collective assimilation while sparing those who adopt it the feeling of guilt often linked to assimilation on an individual basis.”

Rabkin quotes Rabbi Amram Blau saying that Zionism brought greater injury to the Jews than to the Arabs:

“The Arabs may have lost their land and their homes, but by accepting Zionism, the Jews lost their historic identity.”

And he quotes Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, characterizing the two-tier system of rights for Jews and occupied Palestinians as “Herrenvolk [master race] democracy.”

The elevation by Zionists of the volk [a superior people with a special destiny] as the exclusive subject of Jewish history led rabbis to denounce this “cardinal element” of Zionist ideology, Rabkin says. He quotes Robert Wistrich.

“There is no Jewish nation… [Jews] should cultivate the ancient Hebrew language, study their rich literature, know their history, cherish their faith, and make the greatest sacrifices for it; they should hope and trust in the wisdom of divine providence.”

Zionism depends on antisemitism, and it also fosters it.

“Political Zionism intentionally stirs up anti-Semitism,” I. M. Rabinowitch wrote in 1974. “From the very beginning, it has been the policy to deliberately incite hatred of the Jew and, then, in feigned horror, point to it to justify a Jewish state.”

Rabinowitch said that Zionism contains the “most fertile seeds for proliferation of antisemitism” – an element of dual loyalty. Rabkin then quotes a former Israeli diplomat describing the role of Jews in the west as “an Israel-vassalized diaspora.”

Here Rabkin is unintimidated by the climate of intellectual terror. The vassalizing of the diaspora goes beyond double allegiance to “a form of exclusive allegiance to the state of Israel.” (Remember Dennis Ross calling on U.S. Jews to be “advocates” for Israel, not for Palestinians.) Rakin says:

“The unconditional defence of Israel into which certain community leaders have dragooned the Jews tends to expose them to criticism, which in turn justifies Zionism and makes the state of Israel indispensable as an insurance policy. Even proudly secular Israelis find this policy suicidal for the future of the diaspora…

“The denigration of Jewish life outside of Israel has long been a feature of Zionist thought and practice. The mobilization of the diaspora to justify whatever political or military action Israel might undertake constitutes its critical element.”

Not that Zionists knew how to deal with Palestinians. The Zionist activists in Europe never knew the “tolerant variety of nationalism” that arose in the US and Canada that distinguishes between nation, religion, society and state. Rather, the two slogans adopted by the Zionist pioneers clearly illustrated their intentions: “conquest through labour” and hafrada (separation).

“In other words, the Zionist movement adopted a policy of separate development that remains in force up to the present, and explains in large measure the perpetuation of the conflict with the Palestinians and the isolation of the state of Israel in the region.”

These undertakings have led to great Israeli insecurity. Today the term “security” has replaced the concept of self-defence that was widely employed before the creation of the state.

“Israel, often held up as a place of refuge, and even as the ultimate refuge, may well have become the most precarious place of all for the Jews… Now, in contrast to the early years of Zionism, the sense of victimhood has become, over the last few decades, an integral part of Israeli Jewish identity.

“Some of those who have persisted in seeing themselves as victims have come to realize that they are actually victims of the Zionist enterprise, which has subjected them to interminable wars and, in the case of the Arab Jews, chronic social and economic inferiority.”

These conditions generate paranoia, which Rabkin traces to a biblical curse: “you shall flee though none pursues” (Leviticus).

Israeli Jews are aware at some level that their country is based on unstable foundations:

The sense of fragility is fed by awareness of Palestinian hostility, and of the hostility of the region’s population as a whole, a hostility often attributed to so-called “essentialist” causes—Islamic religion and irrational Jew-hatred—rather than to perfectly understandable social and political ones, such as the anger generated by discrimination, dispossession, and deportation of the indigenous population.

Israeli leaders’ demand that others recognize Israel as a Jewish state “testifies to the fragility of the Israeli state, for all its power and prosperity, as felt by many Zionists.” While Zionist fears of becoming a minority cause them to encourage discriminatory immigration policies that only exacerbate the problem.

“Jewish self-hatred” has been a hallmark of the Zionist ideology of national revival. And this too undermines any sense of Israeli permanence.

“Jewish tradition teaches that the Jews must take into account the impression they may make on others, even those who have persecuted them in the past… But the Zionist education system from its inception has promoted the use of force, self-affirmation, and combativeness. The Zionists looked upon the requirement to behave as moral exemplars with scorn and ridicule, caring little for the impression they, and later their state, make upon the world, and above all upon its immediate neighbors. Ben-Gurion formulated the proposition thus: ‘What matters is what the Jews do, not what the goyim think.’”

Thus Zionism produced a state that rejected “Judaism and its humility.” The new Zionist/Israeli culture sees itself as resolutely European. “So it was that dozens of songs, nursery rhymes, and children’s stories were translated from Russian into Hebrew during the early years of Zionist settlement.” But not Arab songs!

Zionists used violence to strip Jews from their religious tradition:

“Many of the founders of Jewish armed groups, in both Russia and Palestine, also recognized that the use of force was a way of tearing the Jews from Jewish tradition.”

Rabkin is not afraid of the Nazi analogy. Israel and Nazi Germany are “powerful states that scorn individual morality, practice racial discrimination, and commit crimes against humanity.” Civic spaces in Israel have become associated above all with “death for the fatherland,” a linkage going back to the beginning of Zionist colonization.

Hannah Arendt’s warning about Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann’s not being guilty of “crimes against the Jewish people,” but of his being a normal response to an evil bureaucratic system carries “a universal meaning, which should stand as a warning to any state that adopts ethnic discrimination as state policy,” Rabkin says.

Israel’s behaviour, the incarnation of the principle ‘might makes right’ has undermined the very bases of international public law

“There can be little doubt that after the Nazi genocide, the use of force became an article of faith for a large number of Jews. To cast doubt upon the legitimacy and efficacy of force is, in Zionist circles, tantamount to treason.”

That article of faith has caused Israel to abrogate international law:

“Since the proclamation of the state, Israeli policy has remained constant. It reflects the imperative to perpetuate a state established against the will of the native Arab population and situated predominantly on lands that had once belonged to that population….Israel’s behaviour, the incarnation of the principle ‘might makes right’ has undermined the very bases of international public law conceived to reduce conflict and promote peace.”

Rabkin is clear about the racist character of such Israeli institutions as the Jewish National Fund:

“This institution has played a crucial role in the development of the Zionist state. In response to an anti discrimination action brought against the JNF in 2004, the organization confirmed that ‘the loyalty of the JNF is given to the Jewish people and only to them is the JNF obligated. The JNF, as the owner of the JNF land, does not have a duty to practice equality towards all citizens of the state.’”

Among Haredi Jews, the criticism of Zionism is alive:

“While the respected Israeli intellectual Boaz Evron argues that ‘Zionism is indeed the negation of Judaism,’ the words that, for decades, have been inscribed on the walls of the Haredi quarter of Meah Shearim in Jerusalem echo this basic position: ‘Judaism and Zionism are diametrically opposed to each other.’”

And of course, Zionism’s international reputation has been transformed:

“Zionism as a symbol of the struggle against racism and for human rights has acquired the characteristics of an ideology that produces Jewish racism and an institutional system that has much in common with South African-style apartheid.

“The Zionist state, which was to have been an instrument of national liberation, has in reality become a skilled manipulator that has attempted to monopolize control of the land, the water, and the country’s other resources.”

Many Zionists have become disaffected:

“Emigration affects primarily the best-educated strata of the population. An estimated 25 percent of Israeli academics work in the United States.”

They understand that Zionism is out of step with history:

“[T]he post-modernist trend presages the collapse of Zionism, in which nationalism is perceived as a form of oppression that must give way to the affirmation of otherness and multiculturalism.”

Rabkin sees Israeli political culture as growing more and more authoritarian:

[T]he totalitarian current gives no sign of abating. If probing questions about certain Israeli policies are sometimes tolerated, not only are all fundamental critiques of Zionism delegitimized, but likewise any individual who might have dared to formulate such criticisms in the past. Such people are systematically excluded from community activities…

Let us recall that the leaders of socialist Zionism made the decision to assassinate Jacob de Haan [in 1924] above all because he “spoke ill of the movement to the outside world.”

This totalitarian culture has special implications for American Jews, those who uphold Zionist doctrine, and those who don’t:

[S]ensitivity to any criticism of Israel can easily be explained by the fact that for many people allegiance to Israel has long replaced Judaism as the anchoring principle of Jewish identity. But in the diaspora, this allegiance extends to an ideal, even imaginary, state rather than to the real and existing state of Israel, that economic and military power that dominates the region. Still, there also exists a Jewish identity whose sole content is to criticize and even to denounce the state of Israel…

The author shares in the hope for Israel to transform itself:

A former speaker of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, believes that converting Israel into a state of its citizens, and erasing its Jewish nature, is “our only hope for survival.” Prominent poet and intellectual Yitzhak Laor argues, “We don’t have to leave this place or give up our lives… we have to get rid of Zionism.”

Rabkin quotes other Jewish anti-Zionists on the urgency of this idea:

We must stop treating Israel as a romantic dream and learn to see her as a heterogeneous country

In accepting the idea that the structures of Zionism could simply be dismantled, Rabbi Moshe Sober emphasizes its psychological aspect—and expresses guarded optimism about its practicality: “A solution is not impossible; it is not even particularly costly. But it will never be achieved unless we can allow ourselves to forget for a moment our cherished beliefs for which we have sacrificed so many lives, and look instead at the actual realities of the situation. We must stop treating Israel as a romantic dream and learn to see her as a heterogeneous country in which two fiercely proud ethnic populations of similar size are struggling for control….”

Sober’s understanding leads to the acknowledgment of apartheid: “All discussion of the occupation simply conceals another reality, [Sober] concludes. Israel has in fact become a binational state that denies political rights to one of those nations.”

Rabkin is also critical of Israel’s need for geo-political supremacy in its region. Here too he sees racism:

Although both Israel and the United States possess nuclear weapons, they deny Iran the right to acquire similar weapons, arguing that its rulers are irrational religious fanatics. Clearly the principle of double standards is at work, reflecting the revival of the concept of so-called civilized countries that, against empirical evidence, are claimed to possess a monopoly on rationality in international politics.

The sense of superiority has nothing to do with Judaism or antisemitism. It is inherent to Zionism, which is opposed to liberalism.

References to Judaism and to Jewish tradition are of little help in understanding the contemporary Israel; quite the contrary, they are more likely to mislead, for Zionism and the state that incarnates it are revolutionary phenomena. It is easier, in fact, to understand that state’s politics, structure and laws without reference to either the Jews or their history…. It is thus imprecise to speak of a “Jewish state” or a “Jewish lobby”: “Zionist state” and “Zionist lobby” would be more appropriate.

Israel has… succeeded in making the Zionist outlook—by definition anti-liberal—acceptable to the general public as well as in the media and the academic world, even in countries with a long liberal tradition where the state, rather than confessional or “tribal” loyalty, theoretically ensures the rights of the citizen…. [T]he JNF, which for a century has been establishing segregated settlements that are out of bounds to Arabs, enjoys not only Canadian fiscal benefits, but the personal participation of top federal officials in the organization’s fundraising efforts.

The overt transformation of Jewish organizations around the world into Israeli vassals

We must criticize U.S. Jewish leaders for being such willing servants of this ideology, damaging both U.S. and Israeli notions of citizenship:

The leaders of major Jewish organizations in the United States and elsewhere routinely act on behalf of Israel… Those leaders appear to have bypassed the limits of the “double loyalty” Jews are often accused of harbouring, insisting that loyalty to the state of Israel must prevail over all others, including that toward their own country.

This leads to the increasingly overt transformation of Jewish organizations around the world into Israeli vassals. Moreover, by emphasizing the primacy of an ethnically and denominationally defined “Jewish nationality,” the state of Israel turns its back on the idea of an “Israeli nationality” that would reflect that multicultural society that has taken shape on this land in the Eastern Mediterranean over the last century…

Israeli leaders ignore borders, intervening in the political process of other countries, particularly in the United States where Israel often plays Congress against he White House. In the Middle East, the IDF pays no heed to borders, striking targets in its neighboring countries, interventions carried out with impunity…

Rabkin’s conclusion is that Zionism is itself a prescription for unending conflict:

“Israel, for all its embrace of modernity, remains bound by the Zionist ideology, which ensures that in spite of its respectable age it remains a daring frontier experience rife with conflict within and without.”

For those who want more of Rabkin’s sharp insights, here is a great youtube of him taking apart a Zionist ideologue, Dennis Prager.

NOTE

In an interview in 2016, Haaretz’s left/liberal publisher, Amos Schocken explained why Haaretz was a Zionist publication:

“Zionism is a viewpoint that sees the national home in the Land of Israel as a solution for the Jewish people in the framework of a democratic, Jewish state. That has been Haaretz’s view since its establishment, and throughout the years it has been my view too.

Zionism’s purpose was to establish a safe haven for the Jews where they would be responsible for their own fate and no longer be a minority among other peoples dependent on the decisions of others. In light of the Jewish experience throughout history, this goal is entirely justified.

Persuading Jews Worldwide to Convert to Zionism

By Rima Najjar

Global Research,

June 23, 2017

Lawfare as used by the Zionist organization The Lawfare Project and others is meant to persuade every Jew in the world (and not just Israeli Jews) that his or her Jewish identity, welfare and security are inextricably related to the continued suppression of justice, equality and freedom of Palestinian Arabs or, in other words, to the Apartheid Zionist Jewish state.

Lawfare is a tool used by Zionist organizations to suppress pro-Palestine activity by conflating anti-Semitism (in its sense of “anti-Jewish animus”) with anti-Zionism, the ideology that perpetuates Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights.  A case in point is the lawsuit against San Francisco State University (SFSU) currently being heard in a U.S. federal court brought by the right-wing Zionist organization The Lawfare Project, which relies on the complete conflation of anti-Jewish animus with criticism of Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights to assert that SFSU violated the constitutional and civil rights of Jewish students and community members. The true intent of the lawsuit is clear: to ensure that advocates for Palestinian rights are punished for standing up for human rights and justice for Palestinians, who have been dispossessed, occupied, and deprived of basic human rights for 70 years.

What The Lawfare Project is doing is simply consolidating the final stage “in the evolutionary method of Zionist policy” in Palestine as described in a long letter (written by Chaim Arlosoroff in 1932) addressed to Chaim Weizmann (an early Zionist born in Belarus) that appeared in the October 1948  Jewish Frontier under the title “Reflections on Zionist Policy”:

… The next “stage” will be attained when the relationship of real forces will be such as to preclude any possibility of the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine, i.e., when the Jews will acquire such additional strength as will automatically block the road for Arab domination. This will be followed by another “ stage” during which the Arabs will be unable to frustrate the constant growth of the Jewish community through … immigration, colonization and the maintenance of peace and order in the country…

The farcical decades-long “Peace Process” notwithstanding, the Zionist movement has so far succeeded in precluding the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state in any part of Palestine, claiming all of it for Jews (the “Hebrew Nation”) worldwide. Having established Israel through the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs seventy years ago, and occupied the rest of the Palestinian territory a mere nineteen years later, the Zionist movement is today all out to consolidate and build on its achievement using, not only the economic, military and political strength of Israel itself (which is already considerable), but also the worldwide support of Jews (while also cultivating the support of American evangelist Christians).

Whereas the kind of brainwashing in which The Lawfare Project is engaged is standard fare in many synagogues and has been working, with very few exceptions, for decades, recent polls indicate that young Jews no longer buy what Israel packages and sells to them. Predictably, that is only spurring Brand Israel to redouble its efforts:

Brand Israel says that ‘Instead of stating dry facts, professionals must highlight Israel’s decency, morality and the diversity of the Israeli society in general’. This is an act of self-deception. Israel is a society where a plurality of Jews support the physical expulsion of Israel’s Palestinians and where ‘Death to the Arabs’ is the favourite chant of the Right.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

Featured image: National Vanguard

%d bloggers like this: