Suspected Sex Offender Alan Dershowitz on France and Terrorism

January 10, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

Is this man really  an Harvard professor?

I am so glad Paris saga is over, we can once again deal with Epstein/Dershowitz sex scandal…

And here is a light question to Alan Dershowitz, is Jeffrey Epstein a terrorist? He terrorized young girls, made them into sex slaves. And what about you Alan, if it happens to be true that you are also a sex offender, should we treat you as a terrorist?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


A Fictional News Item by Gilad Atzmon

Professor Yehuda Kosher from Be’er Chosen University, Israel, announced today that he and his team may be close to uncovering the JNA (Jewish DNA)and may be able to isolate the Khazarian Sex Predator (KSP) gene.

Professor Kosher, Israel’s leading evolutionary psychoarcheologist and a renown advocate of applied Eugenics told The Jewish Scientific Daily (JSD) that the apparent physical resemblance between Woody Alan and Alan Dershowitz’s facial features gives new hope for a scientific break through. Said Kosher in reference to allegations against Alan Dershowitz,

“we may be able, for the first time, to isolate the KSP gene, and later, hopefully, to eliminate it from the genus of our people.

Professor Kosher assured the JSD that he and his team have managed to construct computer simulations that prove an overwhelming facial resemblance between the two New York Jewish celebrities. The Israeli scientist expressed the hope that former Professor Dershowitz could be enticed to agree to an examination by Kosher and his Israeli team. Any resulting scientific procedures may help to ensure the safety of American female minors (gentile).

When asked by the Jewish Magazine why he didn’t heed the call made today byRabbi Shmuley for Jews to lend their support to Dershowitz regardless of his alleged misconduct, Professor Kosher replied angrily,

“I am a Zionist, a true devoted Zionist, in accordance with the spirit of our forefathers, Herzl, Jabotinsky, Weizmann and Nordau. I believe that Zionism’s primary mission was to develop a new Jew who would more closely resemble an ethical and civilized human being. Tracing our most problematic genes from biblical times to the present has been my life’s work. As a Zionist and a near academic, Dershowitz should support our effort and allow me and my team to examine his brain, measure his skull and decode his genetic makeup so that we can compare it to Woody’s Jeffrey Epstein, Roman Polanski  and other ethically troubled characters both Jews and gentile. If Dershowitz is to be a true Zionist like me, he must support our effort to make the Jews look better.”

From Gilad Atzmon to Alan Dershowitz

January 05, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

Dear Alan, I genuinely feel mercy towards you. It is a kind of strange empathic sensation that start to appear once you drift away from the ghetto.

I just saw a BBC item following the sex scandal you were caught in. Apparently  you are threatening to sue lady who claims to be forced to sleep with you. You don’t get it, do you Alan? This is probably the biggest compliment you have ever got in your entire life- a women admits spending a night with you.

If you don’t grasp how important this confession is, just take a brief look in the mirror Alan. You may even realise why it took the young lady more than a decade to recover.

However Alan, listen to me carefully. I do not have any doubt that your understanding of legal matters is beyond superb, but in women you are simply clueless. What you need now is to buy public support and threatening a sexually-abused women with a legal action is really the last thing you want to do.

All you have to do at this stage is to find just a single woman that would admit spending one night with you willingly and voluntarily. Such an act may help us to establish to idea that you are actually an ordinary human being and even a possible object of desire.

Also, instead of denying the allegations against you, use your reputation. You are known as a fib master, Noam Chomsky ladled you a ‘remarkable liar.’ This is the time to celebrate your reputation. Instead of denying sleeping with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s girls just own the experience. Tell us how great it was. Provide us with some juicy intimate details.  Don’t worry, no one is going to believe you anyway, you will be vindicated immediately.

This is my tactical advice for today, I promise to follow the unfolding story and provide you with more help as this story develop. Be strong Alan, as you and I know,  once the first bird twits, more are quick to follow.

Yours Sincerely


Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz named in US lawsuit over underage sex allegations


Reported by Gilad Atzmon

British press reports today that a woman  claims that Jewish banker Jeffrey Epstein loaned her to rich and powerful friends as an underage “sex slave.” The woman has alleged in a US court document that she was repeatedly forced to have sexual relations with Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.

The woman, who filed the motion anonymously, alleges that between 1999 and 2002 she was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein who, she also alleges, loaned her out to rich and influential men around the world.

The British press is obviously interested in developments related to prince Andrew. But I am actually curious to hear what the ethnic cleansing enthusiast Alan Dershowitz has to say in his defence.

The Guardian reported today,

 “another close associate of Epstein who is also accused in the lawsuit, Alan Dershowitz, told the Guardian that the woman’s accusations against himself were “totally false and made up”.

Alan Dershowitz is widely known as an Israeli Hasbara mouthpiece as well as a ‘remarkable liar,’ should we believe him this time?

Imperialism and the Politics of Torture

By James Petras

CIA torture report to be released Tue.


The US Senate Report documenting CIA torture of alleged terrorist suspects raises a number of fundamental questions about the nature and operations of the State, the relationship and the responsibility of the Executive Branch and Congress to the vast secret police networks which span the globe – including the United States.

CIA: The Politics of a Global Secret Police Force

The Senate Report’s revelations of CIA torture of suspects following the 9/11 bombing is only the tip of the iceberg. The Report omits the history and wider scope of violent activity in which the CIA has been and continues to be involved. CIA organized large scale deathsquad activities and extreme torture in Vietnam (Phoenix Project); multiple assassinations of political leaders in the Congo, Chile, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, the Middle East, Central America and elsewhere; the kidnapping and disappearance of suspected activists in Iraq and Afghanistan; massive drug-running and narco-trafficking in the “Golden Triangle” in Southeast Asia and Central America (the Iran-Contra war).

The Senate Report fails to locate the current acts of CIA terror and torture in a broader historical context – one which would reveal the systematic use of torture and violence as a ‘normal’ instrument of policy. Contrary to White House and Senate claims that torture was a “policy error” committed by “incompetent” (or deranged) operatives, the historical record demonstrates that the long term extensive and intensive use by the CIA of torture, assassinations, kidnappings are planned and deliberate policies made by highly qualified, and experienced policymakers acting according to a global strategy approved by both Executive and Congressional leaders.

The Report treats torture as a “localized” set of events, divorced from the politics of empire building. In point of fact, torture is and always has been an integral part of imperial wars, colonial military occupations and counter-insurgency warfare.

Imperial wars and occupations provoke widespread opposition and nearly unanimous hostility. ‘Policing’ the occupied country cannot rely on community-wide support, least of all providing voluntary ‘intelligence’ to the imperial officials. The imperial armed forces operate out of fortresses surrounded by a sea of hostile faces. Bribes and persuasion of local collaborators provides limited information, especially regarding the operations of underground resistance movements and clandestine activists. Family, neighborhood, religious, ethnic and class ties provide protective support networks. To break this web of voluntary support network, the colonial powers resort to torture of suspects, family members and others. Torture becomes “routinized” as part and parcel of policies sustaining the imperial occupation. Extended occupation and intensive destruction of habitation and employment, cannot be compensated by imperial “aid” – much of which is stolen by the local collaborators. The latter, in turn, are ostracized by the local population, and, therefore, useless as a source of information. The “carrot” for a few collaborators is matched by torture and the threat of torture for the many in opposition.

Torture is not publicized domestically even as it is ‘understood’ by ‘knowing’ Congressional committees. But among the colonized, occupied people, through word and experience, CIA and military torture and violence against suspects, seized in neighborhood round-ups, is a weapon to intimidate a hostile population. The torture of a family member spreads fear (and loathing) among relatives, acquaintances, neighbors and colleagues. Torture is an integral element in spreading mass intimidation – an attempt to minimize co-operation between an active minority of resistance fighters and a majority of passive sympathizers.

The Senate Report claims that torture was “useless” in providing intelligence. It argues that victims were not privy to information that was useful to imperial policymakers.

The current head of the CIA, John Brennan rejects the Senate claim, while blithely admitting “some errors” (underwater submergence lasted a minute too long, the electric currents to the genitals were pitched to high?), he argues that “torture worked”. Brennan argues that his torturer colleagues did obtain “intelligence” that led to arrests of militants, activists and “terrorists”.

If torture “works” as Brennan claims, then presumably the Senate and the President would approve of its use. The brutalization of human life, of family members and neighbors is not seen as, in principle, evil and morally and politically repugnant.

According to the explicit rules of conduct of Brennan and the implicit beliefs of the Senate, only “useless” torture is subject to censure – if an address is obtained or a torture victim names a colleague a ‘terrorist’ to avoid further pain, then by the criteria of the Senate Report torture is justified.

According to the operational code of the CIA, international law and the Geneva Conventions have to be modified: torture should not be universally condemned and its practioners prosecuted. According to the Senate only torture that “doesn’t work” is reprehensible and the best judge of that is the head of the torturers, the CIA director.

Echoing Brennan, President Obama, leaped to the defense of the CIA, conceding that only some ‘errors’ were committed. Even that mealy mouth admission was forcibly extracted after the President spent several years blocking the investigation and months obstructing its publication and then insisting on heavily editing out some of the most egregious and perverse passages implicating NATO allies

The Senate Report fails to discuss the complicity and common torture techniques shared between Israel’s Mossad and the CIA and Pentagon. In defense of torture, the CIA and White House lawyers frequently cited Israel’s Supreme Court ruling of 1999 which provided the “justification “for torture. According to Israel’s Jewish judges, torturers could operate with impunity against non-Jews (Arabs) if they claimed it was out of “necessity to prevent loss of or harm to human life”. The CIA and Harvard law professor and uber-Zionist zealot, Alan Dershowitz echoed the Israeli Mossad “ticking time bomb” justification for torture, according to which “interrogators can employ torture to extract information if it prevents a bombing”. Dershowitz cited the efficiency of Israel’s torturing a suspect’s children.

The CIA officials frequently cited the Israeli ‘ticking bomb’ justification for torture in 2007, at Congressional hearings in 2005, and earlier in 2001 and 2002. The CIA knows that the US Congress, under the control of the Zionist power configuration, would be favorably disposed to any official behavior, no matter how perverse and contrary to international law, if it carried an Israeli mark of approval or ‘logo’.

The US CIA and Israeli’s Mossad share, exchange and copy each other’s’ torture methods. The US torturers studied and applied Israel’s routine use of sexual torture and humiliation of Muslim prisoners. Racist colonial Israeli tracts about techniques on destroying the ‘Arab Mind’ were used by US intelligence. Israeli officials borrowed US techniques of forced feeding hunger strikers. Mossad’s technique of ‘Palestinian hanging’ was adopted by the US. Above all, the US copied and amplified Israel’s extra-judicial ‘targeted’ killings – the center piece of Obama’s counter-terrorism policy. These killings included scores of innocent bystanders for every ‘successful target’.

The Senate Report fails to identify the intellectual authors, the leading officials who presided over and who ultimately bear political responsibility for torture.

Top leaders, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and Senate Intelligence Committee chairperson, Diane Feinstein, resort to the Nazi war criminals plea “we didn’t know”, “we were misled” and “the CIA didn’t tell us”.

No judge at the Nuremberg Trials believed them. Nor will any international court of law believe US political leaders’ pleas of ignorance of the CIA’s decade-long practice of torture – especially after former Vice President Cheney lauded the practice on US television and boasted he would implement the same policies again. (One has to wonder about the ‘source’ of Cheney’s transplanted heart…)

During the administration of President Bush, Jr., CIA leaders submitted detailed reports on intelligence, including the sources and the methods of obtaining the information, on a routine basis – with videos and ‘live feeds’ for the politicians to view. Nothing was ‘held back’ then and now, as current CIA head John Brennan testifies. From 2001 onward torture was the method of choice, as testimony from top military officials revealed during the Abu Ghraib investigation.

National Security Agency (NSA) meetings, attended by the President, received detailed reports extracted from CIA “interrogations”. There is every reason to believe that every NSA attendee ‘knew’ how the ‘intelligence’ was obtained. And if they failed to ask it was because torture was a ‘normal, routine operating procedure’.

When the Senate decided to investigate the “methods of the CIA”, half a decade ago, it was not because of the stench of burning genitals. It was because the CIA exceeded the boundaries of Senate prerogatives –it had engaged in pervasive and hostile spying against US Senators, including the Uber-Senator Feinstein herself; CIA crimes were compromising client regimes around the world; and most of all because their orgy of torture and dehumanization had failed to defeat the armed resistance in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

The Senate Report is an exercise in institutional power – a means for the Senate to regain political turf, to rein in CIA encroachment. The Report goes no further than to chastise “inappropriate” techniques: it does not proceed from crimes of state to prosecute officials responsible for crimes against international and domestic laws.

We know, and they know, and as every legal authority in the world would know, that without the punishment of political leaders, torture will continue to be an integral part of US imperial policy: Impunity leads to recidivism.

Richard Cheney, Vice-President under President George W. Bush, notorious war criminal on many counts, and prime advocate of torture, publically declared on December 10, 2014 that President Bush specifically authorized torture. He bragged that they were informed in detail and kept up to date.

In the political world of torture, practiced by Islamic extremists and US imperialists, how does the decapitation of non-combatant prisoners, match up with the CIA’s refrigeration of naked political suspects? As for “transparency”, the virtue claimed by the Senate Report publicists in publishing the CIA’s crimes, as “refurbishing the US image”, the Islamists went one step further in “transparency”: they produced a video that went global, revealing their torture by beheading captives.

The Senate Report on CIA torture will not result in any resignations, let alone prosecutions or trials, because over the past two decades, war crimes, police crimes, spy crimes, and financial swindles have not been prosecuted. Nor have any of the guilty officials spent a day in court. They are protected by the majority of political leaders who are unconditional defenders of the CIA, its power, techniques and especially its torture of captives. The vast majority of Congress and the US President repeatedly approve over $100 billion annual budgets for the CIA and its domestic counterpart, Department Homeland Security. They approved the annual budget voted on December 10, 2014, even as the “revelations” rolled in. Moreover, as the tempest over CIA torture proceeds, Obama continues to order the assassination by drone of US citizens “without ever crossing the door of a judge”.

Despite over 6,000 pages of documents and testimony, recording crimes against humanity, the Senate Report is unlikely to trigger any reforms or resignations. This is not because of the actions of some mysterious “deep state” or because a ballooning national security apparatus has taken power. The real problem is that the elected officials, Presidents and Congress people, Democrats and Republicans, neo-liberals and neo-conservatives, are deeply embedded in the security apparatus and they share the common quest for world supremacy. If Empire requires wars, drones, invasions, occupations and torture, so be it!

Torture will truly disappear and the politicians will be put on trial for these crimes, only when the empire is transformed back to a republic: where impunity ends justice begins.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Chomsky According to Dershowitz

A unique moment in the history of Zionism – Dershowitz has been caught on camera telling the truth.

Listening to Alan Dershowitz, it is clear that the ‘hawk’ Dershowitz and the ‘Left wing icon’ Noam Chomsky agree on pretty much everything to do with the Jewish State and Palestine – “No” to the Palestinian Right Of Return, “yes” to two States ,”yes” to a Jewish State on Palestinian land, etc. Dershowitz is not lying, he truly represents Chomsky’s position. The meaning is simple – the image of a ‘Left/Right division’ within the Jewish world is a dull spin. Jews agree amongst themselves on pretty much everything.

You can listen to the entire boring debate here:

Jewish Lobby: Obama hates Israel

Obama-Israel-holocaustl[1]On Sunday, America’s top 1,100 Israeli poodle gathered to voice their hatred of US president Barack Obama for his preference to have dialogue rather than use military force to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power in the Middle East. The event was the Zionist Organization of America’s annual dinner party.

Mortimer Klein, president of the ZOA was the first to throw a stone at Obama. He called the president by his African name – “Barack Hussein Obama” – and said “shame on you” for failing to stand strongly with Israel against its enemies (Iran, Syria, and Hamas). Next 20-minutes Klein launched a high-octane condemnation of Palestinians.

The Canadian-born US Senator Ted Cruz, who was introduced by his Jewish professor at Harvard, Alan Dershowitz (Obama supporter), issued a blistering critique of US policy toward Israel and told the Zionist crowd that Barack Obama was endangering Israel by refusing to confront Iran and block its nuclear ambitions. In June 2014, after meeting Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Cruz told  JINSA meeting that Netanyahu believes Obama is too weak to attack Iran – and Israel might have to do its dirty work alone.

A lot of national politicians court the people in this room. So there must be some value to it,” said Mortimer Zuckerman, the real estate developer and publisher, who sat near Cruz at the head table. He added that Cruz’s command of issues of interest to pro-Israel activists was impressive.

The group also honored John Hagee, pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio. Miriam Adelson, wife of billionaire casino magnate, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Fox News television host judge Jeanine Pirro, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Garry Baur, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Jewish businessmen Ken Bialkin, David Brog, Martin Gross, Jack Halpern, Irwin Hochberg, Richard Stone, and Jewish king-maker Sheldon Adelson, who called Hagee “the greatest and most effective Christian Zionist in the world.”

Home Depot founder-chairman Bernard Marcus called Obama, ” a Chamberlain in the White House”. British prime minister Neville Chamberlain (1937-40) was a critic of Jewish power in England – but some historians claim his family had Jewish German roots.

Hagee called Obama

one of the most anti-Semitic presidents in the history of the United States of America.”

And he mocked Obama for calling US-Israeli relations unbreakable, saying:

He knows it’s unbreakable because he’s been trying to break it for the last five years.”

Earlier this month, Hagee told his 1.8 million “Christian sheep” that a US-Irannuclear deal would be anti-Israel and anti-Jews.

As expected, Abraham Foxman, the head of powerful Israel lobby ADL, only criticized pastor John Hagee for his calling Obama “anti-Semite” and demanded an apology. He urged Hagee to reconsider his remarks, calling them “Offensive and misplaced”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!


by Trevor LaBonte (Mouqawamah Music EXCLUSIVE)

Given that Gilad Atzmon and Shlomo Sand are both former Jews who have provided criticism of Jewish identity politics, it may be illuminating to understand why the organized, kosherized, Palestinian “solidarity community” embraces Sand while rejecting and disavowing Atzmon.

Atzmon’s initial reaction to his own “disavowal” was characteristically humorous, with him stating that he has only ever operated as an individual, and cannot be kicked out of any groups because he never belonged to any to begin with.

At any rate, it is well-known and easily observable that the Zionist-controlled solidarity discourse, whose primary mouth-piece is “Electronic Intifada”‘s Ali Abuminah, is deeply compromised and functions as a gatekeeper establishment, i.e. it seeks to censor “politically incorrect” ideas, while simultaneously providing weak, ineffectual criticism which ignores all of the key issues which would actually end the occupation of Palestine. Atzmon, a very successful jazz artist in his own right, as well as is the saxophonist on the latest Pink Floyd album, has remarked that “Electronic Intifada has reduced Palestinian resistance to an electronic board.”

In general, the Solidarity movement bears the unmistakable fingerprints of the Jewish left (which operates hand-in-hand with the jewish right), manifesting in a relentless need to convince their faithful but somnambulant following that Zionism has nothing to do with ‘Jews’ and Jewish culture, that these are two completely separate, non-intersecting spheres. The result of this programming is an ideological collective of curiously vociferous people whose top priority, above and beyond Palestinian liberation, is to never offend the Jews. These people can be seen on social media, energetically laying out their talking points to convey the image that “Zionism is the only problem,” Jews and Jewishness are positive and peaceful concepts, and are adamant that Jews and Jewish culture are outside the parameters of what can be considered socially acceptable criticism. They try to set us up to fail to address the real problem, which is Jewish exclusivity and Jewish ethno-centrism, something that has been endemic and definitive of Jewish culture for thousands of years before Zionism was even invented.

Also an important aspect of why Atzmon (and those who appreciate and disseminate his work) are shunned in the solidarity movement while Sand is not, is the “Anti-Zionist Zionist” background of Abuminah himself. Does Abuminah’s Princeton background play a role in his politics? Princeton is a very Jewish environment, as well as a very liberal-elitist environment, which would explain his Jew-appeasing softness on so much of the discourse. For example, he is an advocate of the so-called “One state solution for Israel and Palestine.” Of course, the “one-state/two-state solution” debate is itself a textbook false dichotomy, with both “solutions” conveniently ignoring that all of the land still properly belongs to the Palestians, and anyone who says otherwise cannot be said to truly support freedom for Palestine.

In addition, Abuminah has not yet raised the issue of how BDS recently quietly changed its mission statement at the behest of George Soros and his globalist NGOs to forsake Palestinian right of return and also allow for the creation of a Jewish state, supposedly inside the pre-1967 borders. This transforms BDS into a Trojan horse for Zionism, unless it is forced to change its mission statement back. Gilad has spelled this all out many times, including here in his speech at Tahra Ahmed’s “Seek, Speak, Spread Truth” convention in the UK.

The following article in the UK’s “Independent” gives away most of the key points which may explain the difference in the way Atzmon is received as compared to Sand:

“If politics today is often identity politics, the renunciation of a particular identity is inevitably a controversial act. Just as ex-Muslims such as Ayan Hirsii Ali act as lightning rods for fierce arguments over the place of Muslims in the modern world, ex-Jews such as Gilad Atzmon provoke vituperative debates over contemporary Israel and anti-Semitism.”

“In some ways, the Jewish identity refusenik Shlomo Sand does not deserve to be lumped in with Hirsii Ali and Atzmon. He does not present his renunciation as a heroic act. He does not imply that Jewish identity is necessarily perverse and evil. He does not deny or condone the history of anti-Semitism. What Sand does argue, though, is that contemporary secular Jewish identity is at best a delusion and at worst (in the case of Israeli secular Jewish identity) an insidious form of racism. For Sand, the only viable Jewish identity is a believing, religious Jewish identity – and he is not a believer.”

Maybe the reason that Sand has been accepted to kosherized “progressive” discourse is that, although he recently penned in Hebrew the book, “How I Stopped Being a Jew,” he is still essentially pro-Jewish and retains many Jewish ideological precepts.

Still, Sand has made some achievements in opening up the discourse, publishing the hugely important book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” which finally and definitively admits the truth about Jewish culture and history being fabricated.

But perhaps Sand is a figure in transition, and has not yet come to the point of final realization. Whereas Atzmon has opened up a new avenue for investigation and discussion on the role of Jewish culture in the actions of the “Jewish State,” utilizing his background as an essentialist philosopher to dismantle Jewish identity politics, all of the things that superficially bind the Jews together as a people.

Atzmon is a supporter of Sand’s transition to non-Jew, stating,

“Sand’s latest book, How I Stopped Being A Jew,  is a tragic testimony made by a morally awakened Israeli Jew who comes to realise that his spiritual, cultural and political existence is contaminated with Judeo-centric exclusivism and is fuelled by ethno-centric racism. Shlomo Sand decides to stop being a Jew – but has he succeeded?

Atzmon continues,

“[Sand’s] scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times. How I Stopped To Be A Jew is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.”

Atzmon quotes from Sand’s book,

“’I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,’” (p. 21/Hebrew edition)”and then Atzmon continues, “writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism.

It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The ‘Nazis’ are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés.” Sand so far refuses to acknowledge that “anti-Semitism” is not bigotry or racism, it is actually a rejection of Jewish bigotry and racism, another way in which Sand still registers as tribally motivated. Interestingly, the Holocaust remains sacrosanct in Sand’s writings, another prime litmus test for who has or has not made the transition to free thought.

Atzmon, on the other hand, in reference to the open field of holocaust revisionism, has remarked that “history IS revisionism. It is revisiting the past.” Atzmon refrains from saying what he thinks about the so-called Holocaust, no doubt because it is illegal to question the accuracy of its historicity in many countries.

While Sand’s writings admit that the Jews invented their history, he avoids taking the next step and questioning why they are permitted to carry on with the charade. This is precisely where Atzmon’s investigations begin. He is a critic of this aspect of Jewish culture itself, placing him outside the box, outside the “political correctness” parameters set by the so called “progressives.” He goes against the “rules” of the establishment by actually critiquing the Jewish “culture of critique.”

Another point in which Sand is onboard full-stop with the Jewish left and progressives is his disdain for nationalism. Says Atzmon:

“Sand understands that Jewish identity politics is hollow, but he may fail to grasp that all identity politics are hollow. On the contrary, nationalism, which he clearly despises — the bond with one’s soil, heritage, culture, language, landscape, poetry is actually a cathartic experience. Though nationalism may well be an invention as Sand and others insist, it is still an intrinsically authentic fulfilling experience. As we all know, patriotic national feelings are often suicidal – and there’s a reason for this – because just sometimes it manages to integrate man, soil and sacrifice into a state of spiritual unification.”

For those keeping score so far, Sand hates “anti-Semites,” is a Holocaust enforcer, defends Jewish culture (even while exposing that it is a fraudulent invention), and despises nationalism. How is he not a Jew? After all, Jewish identity is not of an essential nature, one cannot simply “be a Jew.” Action is required. One must see the world as a Jew, and operate as a Jew, and Sand appears to be doing both.The Solidarity discourse advances the kosher agenda by disavowing people like Atzmon because he exposes that Jewish religion and culture are racist and exclusivist all the way. “Progressive” discourse is conspicuously disallowed to touch on these topics because the sinister goal of progressive discourse is actually to protect this highly vulnerable core-most issue. If one cannot discuss the simple fact that the Jewish state’s policies are inherently racist, there is little one can contribute to peace. Therefore this is the one issue that needs to be repeatedly brought to the forefront. The Jewish State is not evil because it is “Zionist,” it is evil because it is Jewish.

Many have been programmed to react quickly to this statement by pointing out that “not all Jews are Zionists,” however, this tiny yet noisy minority of “anti-Zionist” Jews also operate in racially driven state that is not categorically different from the Jewish-only state. Anti-Zionist jews have their own non-universal Jewish reasons why they want to prevent the world from witnessing the crimes Jews are capable of within the protection of their own sovereign state. However, it could all be a sick game too. (See also: The Tribal Nexus: Zionists and “Anti-Zionists” Unite To Ensure The Survival Of Israel –

While it is perfectly acceptable for Jews to perform or celebrate certain diabolical aspects of their supremacist culture, the practice of exposing it remains totally forbidden to gentiles for the most part. We are simply not allowed to criticize Jewish culture, because the Jews controlling what is considered acceptable discourse know that if the truth gets out about their racism and intolerance, the core of their power may be shaken. It is eerie that never before in the history of colonization has talk of the religion and culture of the occupiers been forbidden, except for the case of the unlawful and amoral Jewish occupation of Palestine.

There is an easy litmus test which reveals that the solidarity discourse is under the control of the occupiers: should the number one goal of it all to never offend the Jews, who are the usurpers, aggressors, oppressors, invaders, occupiers and colonizers in Palestine? To never examine the occupation within the context of the religion and culture of the occupiers? Clearly this is deeply problematic. Case in point: Can you imagine speaking about the brutal French colonization of Algeria without speaking of French culture, particularly vis-a-vis the “Enlightenment” or the various French interpretations of “Christianity”? Or the British occupation of the Southeast Asia subcontinent without talking about the empire mentality of British exceptionalism (itself based on British Israelism, a demented royal cult of Judaism for Gentiles) and the Church of England? Or the Portuguese colonization of Mozambique without discussing Portuguese “Catholicism” and Portuguese culture? No, no and no. Absolutely not. The very thought of it is unthinkable. Different colonizers behaved differently toward the peoples they colonized, governed (i.e. oppressed) them differently and even killed them differently, and thus, resistance against the colonialist barbarity took on different forms depending on the nature/culture of the occupiers. The fact that these principles cannot be applied to the Jewish invaders in Palestine isn’t just intellectually dishonest, it’s disgusting.

“Anti-Zionist Zionist” gatekeeper figures like Max Blumenthal tow the party line as well and seem to be in the mix only to reinforce this intellectual dishonesty. They wax lyrical about the generic “White Man” and pontificate endlessly about white supremacy and white privilege, but when it comes to the Jew, Jewish privilege and Jewish supremacy, not only in Palestine but in the West, they not only drop the ball but sometimes go as far as pinning the blame on the aforementioned mythical “White Man” for the crimes of their tribal brethren.

For Blumenthal, this must be all about self-preservation, as he is the (Jewish-) privileged son of Jewish-Zionist Democratic Party stalwart Sidney Blumenthal. What these thought police do is reinforce Holocaust propaganda, go after revisionists and 9/11 truth activists, they are extremely hostile to the Syrian government — and in the case of Blumenthal, they openly disseminate interventionist propaganda for the Takfiri gangs — they go on and on about how Vladimir Putin is a ‘Nazi,’ they spread baseless sectarian lies about Hizbullah and to someone with his eyes open, it is all very transparently Jewish to the core.

When asked why he is disavowed  and why Shlomo Sand is embraced by Ali Abuminah’s kosher-controlled “anti-Zionists,”, Atzmon answered,

“It is very simple… Sand proves beyond doubt that Jews indeed invented their past. However, I start exactly where Sand stops, I ask how do they get away with these lies and for so long. In order to [find the answer], we must grasp the notion of Jewishness and understand the meaning of Jewish power.” Atzmon defines “Jewish power” as the “capacity to stop us talking about Jewish power.”

It is clear that what the Zionist project fears most, what is the only thing that can stop it, is to have the racist nature of Jewish religion and culture fully exposed in broad daylight for all to see, which is what makes Shlomo Sand still kosher within the controlled, Abuminah-worshipping “solidarity” community which is in what Atzmon refers to as an “Anti-Zionist Zionist” organization, and what makes Gilad Atzmon someone the NWO clearly considers one of the gravest threats to its existence.

(Relevant corrections and additions provided by Mouqawamah Music Editor-In-Chief Jonathan Azaziah)

~ The End~

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Dershowitz—Hasbara By The Book

Dershowitz—Hasbara By The Book

by M. Dennis Paul, PhD

Alan Dershowitz on Tuba

Please follow along and, at the end, read by Alan Dershowitz, prominent defender of the indefensible, as he surreptitiously attacks two individuals, both Jews, who he would like you to believe, through inference and innuendo, are the leaders of a global Jew-hating, Israel-hating. Anti-Semitic conspiracy. I’m confident you will find, in his article, most, if not all, the elements outlined in the below guidelines for producing Hasbara.

Hasbara By The Book

Start writing your article by proposing a purely concocted hypothesis or statement of issue which is crafted to support the platform for both your attack upon specific individuals or groups and deflection of culpability in all things. Add a little indignation and some whining to give the impression this issue is emotional (traumatically bringing the Holocaust in flashes before your eyes is always a good consideration.. never mind that your connection to the Holocaust is as tenuous as the connection of a Brooklyn brother to a field-boy lashing). Remember that deflection is one of your most important tools as it allows you to refute blame or intent without ever having to explain yourself or put forth any honesty. Keep in mind that it is acceptable, even honorable, to lie to goyim. Once you have established your useful argument for the readers, make sure they understand they have spent many years under a false impression… of Jews, Israel, Zionism, Palestine, international law, or what have you. Then proceed to correct this “false” impression using your tools of deflection, denial, filtering, polarization, catastrophizing, over-generalizing, emotionalizing, global labeling or any of the other many cognitive distortions that work for us. Do not be afraid to manufacture history or distort it to your personal ends.

Insert, wherever appropriate (or not), our brand signature that any communication which offers criticism of Jews, Israel, Zionism, etc are Jew-hating, Israel-hating and Ant-Semitic. Never let an opponent interject the truth of this matter. You must provide this brand a minimum of 3 times in each communication and in as many different ways as possible. Should your opponent interject in any way, immediately deflect and turn issue into something completely different.. perhaps a boring parable.. anything which redirects attention and causes a momentary block of your opponents’ words. Use “Anti-Semite” and “Anti-Semitic” as often as you can.

Create a grouping of statements, greatly removed from context, which you can use to paint a scandalously false picture of the individual(s)/group(s) you wish to attack. Use words like outrageous, irrational, preposterous, and of course, Jew-hater, Israel-hater, Anti-Semite, self-hating Jew. You might also use Jihadist and terrorist and possibly connect them rightly or wrongly to Hamas.

Sneak in a few more brand signature lines (Any and all communication that criticizes Israel, Zionism or Jews is Israel-hating, Jew-hating and Anti-Semitic).

Show how “good” Israel is by deflecting to Syria, Libya, Iraq and plead for understanding of why “no one” protests those trouble areas with all there human rights violations and international law violations pointing out that:

1..Israel is the “only” State that is “picked on” by the world yet,

2..Israel is the “only” democracy in the region, far more advanced and civilized, etc.

Ignore the fact there are protests and aid missions and rights watches for all those areas. It is honorable to lie to goyim (and errant Jews). Be sure not to make any connections to these other areas such as our sending mercenaries and weapons into some areas, selling weapons to some of our supposed enemies, financing terrorists, By no means should you talk about our nuclear capabilities, spying, or torture.

Offer further inaccurate or false historical statements or reiterate the basic narrative you created. You might add some quotes which you can attribute to no one in particular inferring it is evidence in support of your narrative or any part of it. Toss in a bit more victimization of Jews and cast blame on a few more individuals for promoting Antisemitism etc.

Insist that you are aware Israel has its faults but reiterate all the cognitive distortions previously used and highlighting deflection once again. Be sure to impress that no matter what faults Israel has, they pale in comparison to other nations and in no way justify the world conspiracy against Israel.

Finally, make a plea for humanity in dealing with Israel. It is unfair that Israel be singled out for criticism. Impress that loving Israel is admirable, rational and responsible. Also impress that history mandates Israel takes the measures it does.

OK… Now go ahead and read the article by Alan

or any article by Alan..they’re basically all the same.


Atzmon, a hard leftist, describes himself as a proud self-hating Jew and admits that his ideas derive from a notorious anti-Semite.

He denies that the Holocaust is historically proven, but believes that Jews may well have killed Christian children to use their blood to bake Passover Matzah. And he thinks it’s “rational” to burn down synagogues.

Finkelstein believes in an international Jewish conspiracy that includes Steven Spielberg, Leon Uris, Eli Wiesel and Andrew Lloyd Webber! Some of the Soviet Union’s leading anti-Semitic propagandists were Jews.


Concise, clear, and easy to read.

Gilad utilises a very readable style when articulating his ideas.

The book joins the dots and exposes, among other things, the many and various strands of zionist thought for what they are. A con and a fraud.He also seeks to illustrate that many of the more pernicious among them actually pretend, on the surface, to oppose zionism.
A rather hollow pretense ?

Of course the Alan Dershowitz’s (and fellow travellers) of this world will howl with indignation accusing Gilad of being anti-semitic, a self-hating Jew etc., etc., but hey, what’s new ?

These people have been attempting to close down the Palestine debate for decades with just this sort of ploy, and it’s wearing a bit thin.

The nonsense that one can somehow completely separate ‘Jewish’ and ‘zionist’ is pure fantasy land.

Have these people not noticed that Israel is (and always has been) defined as ‘the Jewish state’ ?

It was set up in the name of the Jewish people, and has been nurtured and maintained ever since by the various Jewish communities and their allies, around the world.

‘Jewish’ and ‘zionist’ ARE inextricably intertwined.
I agree that they are not quite the same thing, but there is enormous overlap and since the whole project of Israel was created in the name of ‘Jewish’, the idea that Gilad (or anyone else for that matter) should wish to explore just what is meant by ‘Jewish’ seems like a both logical, and necessary project to me.

‘Project Israel’ was set up as a secular state after all, decrying religion, yet the justification for it’s existence is purely biblical.

Without the religious connection there would be absolutely no justification for the ‘Jewish State’s existence.

How’s that for a paradox ?
So the question of just what is meant by ‘Jewish’ and ‘the Jewish people’ is at the heart of the whole subject.
Gilad is not the first, and I’m sure he won’t be the last to attempt to get to the bottom of this conundrum.

Famous predecessors include Karl Marx who wrote extensively on this subject in 1843.

Marx didn’t have many positive things to say, and in attempting to get to the bottom of this thorny question of identity, Marx never once used the word ‘zionist’ because of course the political movement called zionism hadn’t yet been invented.

His musings were aimed fairly and squarely at ‘The Jewish Question’.
One of his famous conclusions was that ‘Jewish Internationalism’ was ‘the Internationalism of the financier’ and that as such, lay at the heart of oppression everywhere.

But I’m wandering.

Gilad is very clearly on a journey toward understanding.
Understanding the central themes that shaped his life growing up in the newly formed Israeli state, and just like the story of ‘the King’s new clothes’, on enquiring he finds that there is curiously little substance to the whole thing.

Jewish identity is, it seems, remarkably elusive.

All rather curious when one considers the impact that the creation of ‘the Jewish state’ (with it’s accompanying creed of ‘chosen-ness’) has had (and continues to have) on the world stage.
If you like ‘thinking outside the box’ you will surely find this book interesting.

An absorbing journey, intelligently articulated.
Not a book for the rigid thinker.

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish  Identity Politics

Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not

Ethnic cleansing enthusiast Alan Dershowitz is unhappy with the current BDS efforts (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel).Earlier today Haaretz published Dershowitz’ diatribe on the BDS. For the first time, I have to admit, I agree with the elder Zionist mouthpiece.
Let’s review Dershowitz’ ten arguments against the BDS

1. “The BDS movement immorally imposes the entire blame for the continuing Israeli occupation and settlement policy on the Israelis.”

Dershowitz is obviously correct. It is indeed immoral to blindly blame to oppressor. The victims should also be held accountable.  Israel’s open air prisons’ inmates (the Palestinians) should take responsibility once and for all.  Similarly, instead of blaming the Nazis, we should follow Dershowitz’ new moral guidelines and insist that concentration camp inmates should have questioned their unwillingness to strike a peace deal with the Nazis.

2. “The current BDS movement, especially in Europe and on some American university campuses, emboldens the Palestinians to reject compromise solutions to the conflict.”
Dershowitz hits the nail on the head. It is indeed outrageous that  European and some American universities  encourage Palestinians to reject the ‘Two Jewish States Solution’. 3. “The BDS movement is immoral because its leaders will never be satisfied with the kind of two state solution that is acceptable to Israel. “
The BDS leaders are indeed immoral for not accepting the ‘Two Jewish States Solution’ but also for accepting money from liberal Zionist George Soros, something that led them to compromise on Palestinian precious rights behind the Palestinian people’s back.  

4. The BDS movement is immoral because it violates the core principle of human rights: namely, “the worst first.”
It is indeed immoral of the BDS leaders to criticise Israel instead of joining the humanitarian Israeli visionary ‘New Middle East’ –a utopian dream of a region dominated by sectarian wars in the name of the spring, gay rights and Coca Cola.

5. “The BDS movement is immoral because it would hurt the wrong people.”
“BDS would hurt Palestinian workers who will lose their jobs says Dershowitz.”  Let us face it, there is nothing more encouraging than watching the transformation of ethnic cleanser Dershowitz into a gracious humanitarian driven by concern for the Palestinian worker.

6. “The BDS movement is immoral because it would encourage Iran”
Correct, it is wrong to encourage Iran alone and to forget about billions of potential Jihadists in the region and beyond.

7.” The BDS movement is immoral because it focuses the world’s attention away from far greater injustices, including genocide. “

So true, Palestine indeed diverts the attention from Israeli involvement in organ trafficking, blood diamonds, and weapons trade. It may even divert the attention from the Jewish Lobby and its relentless push for global wars.

8. “The BDS movement is immoral because it promotes false views regarding the nation state of the Jewish people, exaggerates its flaws and thereby promotes a new variation on the world’s oldest prejudice, namely anti-Semitism.”
Indeed, we should never exaggerate the flaws of the Jewish State, in fact we don’t have to.  We must remain scientifically accurate and remember that at the time of Operation Cast Lead 94% of the Israeli Jews supported IDF genocidal measures against the Palestinian.
9. “The BDS movement is immoral because it reflects and encourages a double standard of judgment and response regarding human rights violations. “
It is indeed immoral and politically incorrect  to expose crimes committed by Jews and the Jewish State because everyone knows that Jews are beyond criticism.  

10. “The BDS movement will never achieve its goals.”
Correct, BDS will never succeed. The Jews are defined by negation and the BDS is there to fuel Jewish identification. This is why the BDS is dominated and funded by Jewish philanthropists. Let us face it, the BDS won’t topple Israel. The Jewish State will bring itself down and soon.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available

AIPAC and the Israel Lobby: Down, but Not Yet Out!

President Obama's speaks to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. (photo: AP)

President Obama’s speaks to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. (photo: AP)
Feb 4, 2014, Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
n March 2006, the London Review of Books published a path-breaking essay on “The Israel Lobby” by University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt. The two then published a book the following year, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” They argued that a loose coalition – including leading journalists and media outlets, neo-conservatives, Christian Zionists, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – held a “stranglehold” on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on any public discussion of it.
The mud-slinging that followed confirmed their argument, as the ever watchful Philip Weiss noted at the time. Some supporters of Israel compared the authors to Neo-Nazis and grubby Jew-baiters. The Anti-Defamation League called their argument “a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitics analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control.” And Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, that paragon of even-handed objectivity, decreed that the two men had “destroyed their professional reputations.”
The same mud-slingers still call their political foes anti-Semites, which drains the word of all meaning – a dangerously short-sighted reaction given the resurgence of neo-Nazis on the streets of Paris, as I reported last week. But the Israel Lobby’s stranglehold on Washington has visibly weakened, thanks in good measure to the bravery of Mearsheimer and Walt. Courage is indeed contagious.
Think back to August 2013, when Obama and Kerry called for a not-so-limited military strike on Syria following reports that the government of Bashir al-Assad had used poison gas. To this day, Washington has not shown that the horrific use of gas came from Assad’s forces rather than from the Sunni rebels. But, no matter, AIPAC and its pro-Israel allies led a massive campaign to support U.S. military intervention. They pushed and they failed. Ignoring “the impossibility” of ever defeating the Israel Lobby, progressive organizers – many of them Jewish – mobilized public opinion to flood the White House, Congress, and the media with petitions, emails, and telephone calls opposing yet another U.S. military action in the Middle East.
Faced with the outpouring of antiwar sentiment, Obama first said he would leave the decision to a vote in Congress and then made a deal with Russia to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons. The deal stinks. According to the Obama administration, Assad is dragging his feet and has reportedly shipped out of the county only 4% of his most dangerous chemical weapons, the Priority One chemicals that he was supposed to remove by the end of 2013. But with his fellow Americans weary of endless lies about endless war, Obama has given no indication that he will put military intervention back on the table or that it would rid Syria of chemical weapons if he went to war, whether limited or all-out.
The lesson seems clear. Too many lies and too many military threats make it difficult for Obama to use force even if he could make a good case for it, which he cannot, and who would now believe him if he could? This will not stop the Israel Lobby from jumping in whenever they can. Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times has just done that with a report – datelined Tel Aviv – accusing Assad of “stockpiling advanced weaponry, including chemical and biological arms, in the heartland of his Alawite sect as an insurance policy in case his country is eventually partitioned.”
To punctuate the report, the article confirms that last week Israeli F15s destroyed a missile depot at Jableh near Latakia, which is in the Alawite enclave. Earlier reports of the attack appeared in Lebanese media.
Syria’s civil war continues on its tragic path, and not even Washington’s “humanitarian warriors” openly call for U.S. military intervention. But the big fight here is that Obama’s stand-down on Syria led to negotiations with the Iranians over their nuclear program, which the Israel Lobby is doing everything it can to scuttle. They came close to succeeding. They still might. At one point, they looked as if they had enough senators in their pocket to pass a bill enacting new sanctions against Iran, which could have made negotiations impossible.
Once again, progressive organizers mobilized the largest outpouring of public opinion many Congressional staffers had ever seen, and – believe it or not – Obama stood firm and hit hard. “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so,” said a spokeswoman for his National Security Council. Then, in his State of the Union speech, Obama raised the stakes. “If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks,” he promised, “I will veto it.”
Will negotiations stop the Iranians from ever getting a nuclear weapon? They might, or they might not. But the truth is that, according to the polls, the American people do not want to go to war to stop them. On that, as the Israel Lobby still has to learn, our fellow citizens are absolutely right.


Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.

In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.
Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?
If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?
Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.
Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.
But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff,‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills.Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.
In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.
Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.
Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.
A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.
So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.
As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.
Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.
The Visible Hand
The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.
Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.
Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.
If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it.  that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.
It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.
We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.
Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.
In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned,  ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.
When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.
This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.
For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.
Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.
So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Jewish Left’s  spin particular or


Just saw this 5 stars review on Amazon and decided to  share it with you..
By soil sommelier on January 19, 2013

I had no real interest in reading this until I came across Alan Dershowitz on the John Stossel show, in what seemed a totally inappropriate and uncharacteristic kind of segment. Generally Stossel is all about the Libertarian big ideas, and yet – here was this holder of an endowed chair at Harvard, shrieking like a little girl. 

He was ranting about how students at some school in Chicago should shun their teacher for him having asked them to read and comment on the book. Seems rational enough a request in an institution of supposedly higher learning, but I got the distinct impression that the Israeli lead apologist thinks that only he and his ilk are qualified to decide what we should and should not be allowed to read. So much for our democratic “friends” in the Middle East eh? More curiously, this Dershowitz character (wasn’t he on O.J.’s “Dream Team”?) is actually supposed to be an American citizen, as well as being called one of the great Constitutional scholars of our time. 

If he’s really one of the best, then it’s no real surprise why we’re where we are. Not being particularly fond of anyone so devotedly myopic to defending Zionism (or any type of close minded zealot for that matter), the more he whined, the more I felt compelled to purchase, read, and share the book. So far, next to Hayek’s, Road to Serfdom, it’s probably my most frequently lent volume.

The author’s credentials were smeared in a very glaring way by the Zionist extremists, but his book is anything but what they claim. Their insults regarding his credentials are meaningless, particularly since people like Dershowitz have never served as the author has, in the Israeli army. This notion of the Holocaust having been turned into a religion all unto itself is also quite an

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics – available on

Not satire- Dershowitz says Israel should Ignore International Law over Iran


Dershowitz: Ignore International Law

Advocate urges Israel to act as it sees fit on Iran. International law is ‘a construct in the mind of a bunch of left wing academics.’

Esteemed advocate Alan Dershowitz says that Israel should ignore international law when deciding how to deal with Iran.

International law is “a construct in the mind of a bunch of left wing academics,” he said, in a lecture at the Institute of National Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv last week “There is no basis for international law in any reality. It’s not based on legislation. Much of it is not based on treaty. It is the ultimate exercise in elitist nondemocracy.”

Iran does not believe that its nuclear weapons program is in danger of being attacked, he estimated. It wrongly believes, he said, that Israel will not attack it unless the US gives it a green light.

The interim deal made with Iran in Geneva was “a mistake,” Dershowitz said. Iran “got what it wanted…China is already there in Tehran seeking business. Other countries are there seeking business. They see the end of the sanctions regime. The words may not be be that but the music is certainly in that direction.”

Iran has given up nothing in the deal, he explained. They are still developing rockets that can carry nuclear weapons. There has been no slowing down in the work of enrichment centrifuges, no ceasing of the Arak heavy water plant’s activity, and the Iranians see the deal as a victory.

The big difference between the US and Israel in this matter stems from the fact that the US is thousands of miles away from the Middle East, whereas for Israel, the Iranian threat is a much more serious one, said Dershowitz.


From my zio-crap file

Why, When and How Ali Abunimah Asked Me To Lie For The Cause? (the full transcript)

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

On 30th November 2010 Abunimah wrote to me:

“What you describe as ‘Jewish’ might perhaps be more accurately described as ‘Zionist,’ – and then we might find grounds for a lot of agreement.”

It doesn’t take a genius to grasp meaning of the quote above. Abunimah advised me to misinform my readers and my listeners in return for possible  ‘political support’. He wanted me to buy into the same Jewish progressive mantra that diverts the attention from that critical Jewish ideology and culture that drives the Jewish State and its powerful Lobby. It’s all pretty clear but one question still comes to mind – why would a Palestinian invest so much time and energy into protecting the Jewish state from such an essential and crucial criticism?

Yesterday, desperate to appease his Zionist detractors and Left Jewish supporters,  Abunimah published the entire exchange between us on the Electronic Intifada in the hope that someone out there might interpret his words as he wishes them to be interpreted. It didn’t happen, in fact, he achieved the opposite and only proved I was telling the truth.

I was very glad to read my words on Electronic Intifada since this is the first time that this pro-Palestinian site aired any criticism of Jewish identity politics and in retrospect, reading my words made me very proud. I saw a principled and persistent argument based on an informed analysis of the situation in Israel, Palestine and beyond. And, I like to think that it is precisely this aspect of my work that unites Dershowitz, Blumenthal, Foxman and  Abunimah into a united anti Atzmon task force.

But there is one crucial difference between Abunimah and my Zionist detractors. My Zionist opponents do indeed try to silence me, occasionally they send me death treats and Dershowitz particularly has used every trick in the book in a desperate attempt to discredit me – but never has he asked me to lie. Never has he asked me to deceive (though he’s pretty good at it himself.)

The real question is: Why am I and Ali Abunimah in conflict? Are we not fighting for the same cause? And also, why does Abunimah want me to lie? Why does Abunimah himself lie? People lie for a reason so when Abunimah lies, does he do it for the Palestinian people in Gaza or in Jenin? Does he lie for the refugees in Sabra and Shatila? Or is he lying to soothe his paymasters in NY? I have my answers but, for the time being, I’ll let you judge for yourself.

Here is the full email exchange between myself Gilad Atzmon and Ali Abunimah  copied from Electronic Intifada. If you are able to interpret Abunimah’s message differently, please do let me know..

From: Gilad Atzmon to Ali Abunimah.
December 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Dear Ali,
I realised today that you were upset by my short talk in Stuttgart.

It is important for me to mention that I referred to Jewish identity and Jewish Ideology rather than to Jewish people. In my entire career I have never referred to Jewish people, Jewish ethnicity or race!!!
However, since Israel presents itself as ‘the Jewish state’, we must be entitled to elaborate on Jewish identity, Jewish ideology and Jewish politics.

I understand your concerns, I know exactly where you come from and I also appreciate your immense contribution to the discourse. However, as an artist and a writer i am somehow compelled to share my truth with others. I am sure that your realise that it is Jewish ideology and culture that stops Israelis from jumping on the OS [one state] wagon. Even the Jewish left stops short of doing so.

I somehow pretty sure that you know it yourself.

With great respect

From: Ali Abunimah to Gilad Atzmon
November 30, 2010 at 5:16 pm

Dear Gilad, I appreciate your note. However I did not hear it quite like that and I am not sure that others did and my fear is that what you said can lead not to enlightenment, but to encouraging discrimination of deepening prejudices. I doubt that is your intent, but it is what could be the result. What you describe as “Jewish” might perhaps be more accurately described as “Zionist,” – and then we might find grounds for a lot of agreement – but that is a longer discussion perhaps we’ll have a chance to have in person another time. Of course you have the right to speak your mind, and you always do!

From: Gilad Atzmon to Ali Abunimah
November 30, 2010 at 7:11 pm

Dear Ali thanks so much for taking the time… i will be very short. In my I writing differentiate between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). I ve never ever spoken about Jews (the people), I hardly speak about Judaism but restrict myself to a certain interpretation of it , yet, i am very critical of Jewish ideology, politics and identity.
In Germany, i spoke about Jewish Ideology and culture. Didn’t say a word about Jews, Jewish people, Jewish ethnicity or Jewish race. I just do not do it.

It is unfortunately a fact that Universalism and reconciliation are foreign to Jewish ideology for Jewish Ideology is tribal and defined by negation.

I do not agree that Jewishness (ideology) is ‘Zionism’. Zionism is indeed one manifestation of ‘Jewishness’. I won’t exhaust you with it, I am about to publish a book about it.

However, as you know, Zionism is not a living discourse in Israel. Zionism is a diaspora discourse. Both Ilan (Pappe) myself and a few other millions were not educated as Zionists ( Jews awaiting transformation) but as Sabras (the ‘success fruits’ of Zionism). We were the post revolutionary entities. Hence the attack on ‘Zionism’ can hardly touch Israelis (and in fact it doesn’t).

I believe that this understanding is crucial for the success of our project. I believe that we must understand what we are up against.

I was very excited to hear both you and Ilan. You are both incredible in what you are doing. However, I understand now that you probably do not approve my approach tactically.

You may be right about it, but as you know, i operate totally alone. I am not part of any movement. I am totally independent. I perform every night, I make each of my concerts into a rally for Palestine and the right of return. I take full responsibility for everything I say. And i also pay the price when there is a price to pay 🙂
I hope to meet once, not before too long, and elaborate on these issues. I believe that they are crucial

Peace and tx for your attention

Jews Are Not a Race But Jewish Identity is Racist

DateSaturday, October 12, 2013 at 2:14PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

 By Gilad Atzmon

We were informed this week that the four major female founders of the Ashkenazis show roots in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. So do most of the minor founders, the study found. Only 8% of the mitochondrial DNA shows signs of being from the Near East.

Gil Atzmon, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, who led the research, argued that there had been some evidence of mass conversions, especially of women, to Judaism throughout the Mediterranean in the past. That resulted in about 6 million citizens, or a tenth of the Roman population, who were Jewish.

The practical meaning of this information is simple and far from being new. Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic and have no roots in Palestine. Needless to say that neither Alan Dershowitz nor Max Blumenthal or myself look particularly oriental. So if Jews are neither a race nor Semitic what is it that bonds them together? The answer is an extreme form of tribal ethnocentrism AKA racism. In short, Jews are not a race but Jewish secular culture is racist to the bone.

Both Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’ are operating within ethnocentric and racially exclusive cells. Israel is the Jews-only State, but it opponents the JVP, IJAB, Jewish Socialist Group etc. are similarly Jews-only political gatherings.

But if Jewish politics is racist, exclusive and often abusive, what exactly legitimizes its anti-racist mantra?

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on  &

A Talmudic Deliberation

Alan Dershowitz vs. Gilad Atzmon –

By Gilad Atzmon

Ethnic cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz is campaigning today for the release of arch spy Jonathan Pollard. In a commentary published on the repulsive Jewish media outlet The Algemeiner, Dershowitz argues “the time has come…for the United States to do the right thing with regard to Jonathan Pollard.”

Dershowitz’ argument is amusing as usual.  “Pollard poses no continuing danger to America, since he has not had access to our secrets for nearly 30 years.”

Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, should know that people occasionally remain locked behind bars for the crime they committed in the past rather than the crime they may not commit in the future.

For some peculiar reason Dershowitz also equates between Pollard and the Palestinian freedom fighters (whom he calls ‘murderers’), due to be released by Israel.  “Unlike the Palestinian prisoners who are to be released, he (Pollard) has expressed regret over his actions and has sought forgiveness.”  Dershowitz obviously fails to realise that freedom fighters and political prisoners don’t tend to ask for forgiveness. Their action is the outcome of a legitimate struggle against oppression.  However, Pollard, who was involved in an act of treason, falls into a different category altogether. Dershowitz and Pollard should accept that the act of asking for forgiveness doesn’t necessarily lead to a pardon.

Dershowitz believes that the USA should release Pollard in an attempt to persuade the Israelis to ‘vote for peace.’ “The Israeli public will have to vote for any deal struck between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators,” contends the ‘best Jewish Lawyer in the world.’ The Talmudic reasoning is quick to follow – “the outcome of such (Israeli) referendum will depend on whether Israeli voters believe that their security has been assured and that the United States continues to stand behind them.” So here we are, America should let off an arch Israeli spy so the Israelis can vote for peace.

I think that Dershowitz’ Talmudic orientation is indeed very impressive. However, being myself a product of Talmudic upbringing, I would actually go along with Dershowitz’ suggestion. I would propose that the USA releases Pollard immediately under a strict provision – If the Jewish State votes peace as Dershowitz promises, Pollard would remain free. But if the Israelis fail to provide, if they vote against peace (as they usually do), then Pollard would be locked behind bars again as stipulated by his life sentence.

Such a condition would make the Israeli spy into a negotiation bargain for peace. If the Israeli people really want Jonathan free, as Dershowitz insists, they would have to choose peace for the first time.

I would love to know how Dershowitz can rescue his troubled case now.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on  &

Israel Channel 2 program on Anti-Semitism (must watch)

Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols, it commits crimes against humanity in the name of the Jewish people, and yet, Israeli TV can’t understand why people out there express some anger towards Israel. Zionism or Jews. I can’t make up my mind whether this is tragic or just sad -time is overdue for Israel and Jews to self-reflect.
The TV program fails to define what ‘anti Semitism’ is. It also fails to suggest since when Jews are Semites.

In spite of being an Israeli (Hebrew) TV program, many of the segments are in English.

Interestingly enough, just a year ago, Ethnic Cleanser enthusiast Alan Dershowitz crowned me as the ‘biggest danger to the Jewish people.’ This time I am not mentioned at all. I guess that our Zionist, AZZ and their Palestinian Sabbath Goyim grasped by now that the Anti Semite/Racist label is not going to work with me. I easily survived the smear. They will soon try something new. I can see them working hard.


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

%d bloggers like this: