2010: Canada’s Secret Trial, ‘Who is Ernst Zundel?’

By VT Editors -May 1, 2021

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

March 19, 2010

VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS

First they came for the holocaust denialists and I did not speak out as I was not a holocaust denialist….

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

In Europe and Canada, saying that any commonly held belief taught in Israel about the holocaust may be incorrect can land you in prison for up to 20 years.  If you say only 5,999,999 Jews died, you go to prison.  If you say they were shot, not gassed, you go to prison.  In a world where the only part of the nightly news that can be believed is the sports scores, Americans are infamous for lying about the weather as are Italians, Ernst Zundel was sent from Canada to serve 5 years in prison in Germany for doubting the official version of the holocaust.

WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE?

Many Germans would like to find a version of history where they don’t seem barbarous.  Should that be a crime?  Palestinian who suffered hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of Israel say it is done because Jews use the holocaust as an excuse for murder.  Iran just loves starting trouble.  They are like that.  Is asking questions about history a crime?  Are there really well financed attempts to prove that the holocaust didn’t happen for the reasons Israel says, “So it can happen again?”  Is sending people to jail in violation of common sense and honor worth defending any idea?  Didn’t we end up doing things like this in the Middle Ages when the Catholic Church went on a several century murder rampage?

WHAT DOES ANYONE KNOW?When in Germany, I look across the street.  A synagogue was there.  Now the leader of the church choir lives there.  He took me thru the 500 year old building.  There is a small plaque on the sidewalk.  No Jews remain.  Now they visit on vacation, buy wine, eat cake at the outdoor cafes and never see the sign for the missing synagogue.  At the end of the street there used to be a Nazi Party headquarters.  In 1944, an American plane, maybe a B-26, came down the river.  No more building.  Nothing else was hit.  This guy was some pilot!

IS IT WORTH IT?

Saying large numbers of Jews and many other people weren’t enslaved and murdered by the Nazis is offense and wrong.  It is also stupid.  Stupid and criminal are not the same thing.  Saying it is OK to do something wrong to someone else, let’s say, the Palestinian, because the Germans were bad is wrong too.  We all learn this as kids.

We can’t fix what happened.  I expect everyone to learn, to prepare and if wise, arm themselves to the teeth until mankind proves themselves less toxic.  This is common sense.

HYPOCRITICAL CANADA

If Canada loves the Jews so much, Hitler would have sent them all to Canada, a country nearly empty, long before the killing started.  Hitler asked, Canada and so many other countries refused.  Ask any Jew, they know the list.  Jailing Ernst Zundel is so much easier than living with the truth.

Too little, too late.

The issue here is secret trials with secret witnesses and secret charges.  Canadians love bashing the United States for our Bush era fling with fascist tyranny but easily forget their own.  When remembering offenses, perhaps one could remember the offense against Ernst Zundel, done in the name of liberalism and political correctness.  Anyone who would send Ernst Zundel away would, if pushed, start transporting Jews “east.”

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

What was said about Ernst Zundel, Canadians used to say about the Jews until it became “illegal.”

The Jewish Takeover of Canada: The Case of Arthur Topham

By Lasha Darkmoon –

October 10, 2014

Has Canada been taken over by Jews? It would seem so, if the relentless persecution
of Canadian patriot and freedom fighter Arthur Topham 
is anything to go on.

. . . by Lasha DarkmoonIT’S TOO LATE TO CRY — IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED

Canadian patriot and freedom fighter Arthur Topham is to be hauled before the Canadian courts next year on trumped-up charges. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Arthur is an innocent man. His trial date has now been set. He will appear in court on 26 October, 2015, and his trial will last for two weeks until 6 November.

If found guilty, this man who has said and done nothing that you and I have not said or done a thousand times, will be torn from the embrace of his wife, his family and his friends and be thrown into prison. It will be a major miscarriage of justice if this should occur.

The forthcoming trial of Arthur Topham (pictured) is therefore much more than the trial of one man. Canadian justice will itself be on trial.

arthur topham

What is Arthur’s alleged crime? Arthur’s only crime is that he is a political dissident who has chosen to exercise his democratic right to free speech. He has spoken out eloquently about the war crimes of the state of Israel and published books on his website which are regarded as offensive to many Jews. To criticize this privileged ethnic group in Canada or to question its cherished assumptions, is, it seems, strictly taboo. This is classified as “hate speech”.

At no time has Arthur advocated breaking the law. He has never incited anyone to violence. He has merely utilized his pen to express his political views in a rational and civilized way as any political dissident anywhere in the world would do.

If Arthur had been an American or British citizen, he would not be facing a possible prison sentence right now, and this is because whatever Arthur has said or done is not regarded as a crime in the United States or Britain.If Arthur is to be condemned in a Canadian court for “hate speech”, it will only be because Canada has now fallen under the dominant influence of a powerful ethnic group who have somehow managed to turn Canada into an Israelified police state.

Yesterday I received an email from an old friend of mine. His name is Felix Dean. He is a retired Canadian professional who dearly loves his country, just as Arthur Topham does. Unlike Arthur however, Felix can no longer bear to live in Canada. He feels that Canada has rapidly morphed into a police state under the malign influence of organized Jewry. So Felix now resides in self-imposed exile within “the civilized confines of Europe,” to quote his own words.

This is what Felix has to say about his Canadian compatriot Arthur Topham:

“To the best of my understanding, Arthur Topham’s cardinal sin is not what he said, but the fact that he PUBLISHED it. There is an individual by name of Richard Warman, the rabid Zionist attack dog whose only reason for living is to destroy truth tellers like Arthur. Warman is actually of German ancestry, not a Jew as far as I know, but he is a classical cult zombie, someone so thoroughly brainwashed and programmed for bloodshed that I cannot but regard him as little better than a Manchurian candidate of the worst sort.”

richard warman

Strong words, friend Felix. It distresses me to know that Canadian justice is now apparently relying on the evidence of Manchurian candidates. Has it really come to this?

It would appear that this man Richard Warman (pictured), an ardent Zionist with a reputation for being a “serial complainant”, has a personal grudge against Arthur Topham and would like to see him go to prison.

Though non-Jewish himself and with no official position, Warman is constantly to be seen filing complaints against critics of Big Jewry. It was he who tried to get David Icke into trouble recently, accusing Icke of unspecified “hate crimes”. Apparently mentioning “Jews” in the same breath as “lizards” is deeply disturbing to Mr Warman and could indirectly lead to a second Holocaust.

Needless to say, Warman is relatively small fry: a pest and a nuisance rather than a serious threat to champions of free speech. Arthur’s main adversary is a powerful Canadian Jew, Harry Abrams, British Columbia representative of B’nai B’rith Canada. It was he who in 2007 registered a section 13 complaint against Arthur as follows:

“This concerns a complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada, and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”

Cut out the legal jargon and it boils down to this: Arthur is a criminal because he has given offense to the Jews.

In 2012, Harry Abrams filed a second complaint against Arthur with the British Columbia “Hate Crimes” unit, alleging that:

“Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Impressive legal jargon reducible to the age-old whine: “This man is saying bad things about Jews and must be stopped!”

This is the charge Arthur is now fighting, and this is the question the Canadian courts must decide: is it permissible to contradict a Jew in any way, thereby hurting his feelings, and will you be sent to prison if he complains about you?

An instrument of oppression and a serious threat to free speech in Canada
An instrument of oppression
and a serious threat to free speech in Canada

A few more quotes from the email of my Canadian friend Felix will help to fill in the picture:

“Arthur had a brave and noble defender in his lawyer, Douglas Christie, who originally defended Ernst Zundel and other political dissidents. Christie unfortunately succumbed to liver cancer a few years ago, a true hero in every sense of the word.

Consider that all these guys are real Canadians, whose ancestors were the original pioneers and frontiersmen of our beloved country. These great Canadians earned combat medals, they fought and died in wars on behalf of Canada, and then what happens? These troublesome Jews show up and proceed to grind all our Canadian patriots to dust and ashes, as if they owned the world and all the surrounding planets.

No part of Canadian history holds any value for these alien interlopers. They respect none of our traditions. It is thoroughly disgusting.

You and I have said things that are hundreds of times more offensive to “the Jews” than Arthur Topham has, and yet no one is threatening to throw us in prison! So why do they pick on Arthur? It’s because Arthur has made a name for himself (through Christie) in the mainstream press. Ordinary Canadians know all about him and therefore he must be made a very public example of — his head must be paraded through the streets on a spike!

Arthur most certainly needs defending. In fact, I believe his wife is Jewish. Not that this will help him in any way.”

I was deeply moved by this eloquent email from my friend Felix, himself a Canadian citizen, as I say, who has chosen to leave Canada and live abroad because of the takeover of his country by an increasingly obnoxious, in-your-face Jewish minority. This natural aversion to being bossed around by pesky Jews naturally means that Felix is now regarded as an “anti-Semite” — a term which, according to B’nai B’rith Canada, can now be applied to four million Canadians.

It is amazing to think that even a man with a Jewish wife such as Arthur Topham should be regarded as a dangerous anti-Semite by B’nai B’rith Canada. Consider this sobering fact: not a SINGLE Canadian citizen has been named as a victim of Arthur Topham’s political activities. Who has complained to the police about Arthur Topham? Only TWO individuals out of 36 million Canadians: one a non-Jewish serial complainant, Richard Warman, already mentioned above, and the other a powerful Jew representing B’nai B’rith Canada, Harry Abrams. It is Harry Abrams who is currently leading the witch hunt against Arthur Topham.

The glib assumption that B’nai B’rith Canada, spear-headed in the British Columbia region by Jewish commissar Harry Abrams, represents Jewish interests in Canada and speaks for all Canadian Jews, is an assumption that cannot be granted. There is one Jew who certainly does not feel that B’nai B’rith Canada speaks for all Jews, and that is Arthur Topham’s Jewish wife.

I venture to say that Arthur’s Jewish wife is only one among thousands of Jews in Canada who are utterly appalled by the flagrant war crimes committed by the Jewish state in Gaza only quite recently. These Jews do not feel that B’nai B’rith Canada, with its undeviating loyalty to Israel, represents their interests in any way.


For the record, Arthur Topham’s Jewish wife is totally aware of Arthur’s political activities and is behind her husband 100 percent of the way in whatever he has said or done. Raised in a secular household of Russian Jews, Topham’s wife has no time for Zionism. She is a practicing spiritual healer, with clairvoyant abilities, who uses traditional medicines in her healing ministry. Ever since she was a child, I am told, “she has followed the Red path of the Native American Indians and never could relate to her Jewish background.”

Naturally, Arthur’s Jewish wife does not, unlike B’nai B’rith Canada, regard it as a crime that Arthur should have published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on his site.

That B’nai B’rith Canada should actually go to the absurd length of suggesting that Arthur Topham should be sent to prison for, among other things, publishing the Protocols on his website—a book that anyone can buy anywhere—is a sure sign of desperation as well as malevolent overkill.

Apart from the Protocols, there are other books Arthur has published on his website which, according to B’nai B’rith Canada, he should not have published and which mark him out as a dangerous criminal who is a threat to Canada’s 375,000 Jews. These are books widely available not only on the internet but in major libraries and specialist bookshops, e.g., Eustace Mullins’ The Biological Jew and Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today.

Elizabeth Dilling’s book, incidentally, happens to be a meticulously researched exposé of the Babylonian Talmud, revealing in quotation after shocking quotation the bizarre mindset of Talmudic Jewry. Here are a few examples of what will be found in the Jews’ holiest book:

(1) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

(2) “A Gentile girl who is three years old may be [sexually] violated.”

(3) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.”

(4) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.”

B’nai B’rith Canada is naturally incensed that the official Jewish hatred of non-Jews should be so openly revealed. They would prefer to see their hatred of the non-Jewish majority kept carefully under wraps. It follows that this highly repressive Jewish organization would not only like to see Dilling’s book banned, but they would also like to see Arthur Topham given a stiff prison sentence for daring to draw attention to the book on his website.

The unbelievable chutzpah of B’nai B’rith Canada was perhaps even more flagrantly on display when they raised objections to Arthur Topham’s republication on his site of Theodore N. Kaufman’s hate-filled 1941 book Germany Must Perish! Written by a mentally deranged American Jew, this disreputable book called for the TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE BY FORCIBLE STERILIZATION OF EVERY SINGLE GERMAN MALE!

In order to highlight the enormity of what this psychotic Jew was actually suggesting, Arthur employed the ingenious device of republishing the book on his website with a few significant alterations. First, he changed the title to Israel Must Perish! Then he substituted the word “Israel” for “Germany”, “Jew for “German”, and “Netanyahu” for “Hitler”. This at once transformed Kaufman’s hateful book into a Swiftian satire.

The point Arthur Topham was making was unmistakable. If it is permissible to call for the mass extermination of the GERMAN people by enforced sterilization of every single GERMAN MALE, then it was equally permissible to call for the extermination of the JEWISH people by the enforced sterilization of every single JEWISH male. The logic was impeccable.

Such perfect logic, however, was displeasing to B’nai B’rith Canada, Driven to desperation, this Jewish organization then resorted to dirty tricks. First it alleged, falsely, that Arthur had actually published a real, hard copy book called Israel Must Perish! He had done no such thing.

Secondly and even more egregiously, it made out that Arthur was himself advocating the genocide of the “whole Jewish population.” He was doing no such thing. It was Detective Constable Terry Wilson of British Columbia Hate Crimes Unit who told Arthur in person that B’nai B’rith Canada was attempting to make this defamatory and unprovable allegation.

Kaufman’s “hate-filled screed titled German Must Perish! [Arthur reveals on his website] “was promoted by the most prestigious mass media publications in the USA when it appeared in 1941 prior to America’s entry into the conflict. Magazines like Time and newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post lauded the idea of absolutely destroying the German nation and the German race as a whole, referring to this grotesquely contemptible concept as a “SENSATIONAL IDEA!”

5

The implacable Jewish hatred for the German people, oozing from every line of this nauseating book and easily demonstrated by its hysterical call for the mass “castration” of every single German male in the world by sterilization, was, you will regret to learn, not confined to one or two crazy Jews in Brooklyn. It was official government policy in an America already to a large extent dominated by its Jews.

In September 1944, the savagely vindictive Morgenthau Plan for Germany was unveiled. The evil brainchild of two Jews in the American administration, Harry Dexter White and Henry Morgenthau, this malevolent plan for postwar Germany amounted to little more than the mass castration of the German people—humiliation and punishment ad infinitum.

As the German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels put it, “Hate and revenge of truly old-testament character are clear in these plans dreamed up by the American Jew Morgenthau. Industrialized Germany should be literally turned into a huge potato field.” This comment has naturally been dismissed as contemptible nonsense by the court historians and their Jewish mentors, given that Goebbels said it. Therefore to quote it as an indictment of Morgenthau is—you guessed it—”anti-Semitic”.

However, US Secretary of War Harry Stimson is not so easy to dismiss. Stimson’s final assessment of the Morgenthau Plan was that “it is Semitism gone wild for vengeance.” Morgenthau, he added, “was so biased by his Semitic grievances that he really is a very dangerous advisor to the President.” In his diary he wrote tersely: “Objective of punishment is prevention but not vengeance. Reason why Jew is disqualified.” (See here)

Needless to say, Stimson has himself been dismissed as an anti-Semite for saying this. De Judaiis nil nisi bonum.

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were to put their initials to the revengeful Morgenthau Plan. Helpless puppets of the powerful Jews who jerked their strings, it seems that neither world leader had much choice in the matter. Both lived to to regret their actions. Roosevelt later said “he had no idea how he could have initialled this.” Churchill was to parrot his words, “I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail. I am sorry I put my initials to it.” (See here)

In his 1956 book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed was to refer to the Morgenthau Plan as “The Talmudic Vengeance.” (Title of Chapter 42). An apt description, which perhaps helps to explain why Douglas Reed is another writer whose works organized Jewry would like to see banned, along with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Elizabeth Dilling’s exposé of the Talmud, The Jewish Religion.

Conclusion

To summarize: Arthur Topham has said nothing that you or I have not said repeatedly, day in and day out. If Arthur is guilty of “hate speech”, then we are all guilty of hate speech. If Arthur is to be consigned to a Canadian prison for his views, then we all deserve to join him there and be allocated adjoining cells.

If Arthur is guilty of speaking out against the state of Israel, especially after its recent war crimes in Gaza, then we are ALL guilty—for there is not one of us who has not cried out in revulsion against the wanton mass murder and maiming of Palestinians, most of them women and children, whose only crime is that they happen to own the land the Jews covet.

Let this be noted: Canada, now almost completely under the Jewish yoke, would like to criminalize EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM OF THE JEWISH STATE. Merely to give offense to a Jew, to hurt his feelings by disagreeing with him, will soon earn you a stiff fine or a prison sentence. Here is what B’nai B’rith Canada would like to see incorporated into Canadian law:

“We must repeat again and again these basic facts — TO BE ‘anti-Israel’ IS TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC. TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, ISRAELI PROFESSORS and ISRAELI business, these are not political acts, these are acts of hate, acts of anti-Semitism! Anti-Israel hysteria is anti-Semitic hysteria. They are one and the same.”

The above statement was made in 2009 by Yuli Edelstein, Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, The capital letters are his. (See “Criminalizing Criticism of Israel in Canada”)

Dare to express pity for this little girl and demand the punishment of the Israeli soldier guilty of doing this to her
and you will soon face criminal proceedings in Canada

Here is the picture of an Israeli woman, an atrocity tourist who claims that the sight of Palestinian children being killed gives her exquisite pleasure, almost bringing her an orgasm:

Dare to criticize this sexually perverted Jewess
and you will soon be accused of “anti-Semitism” by B’nai Brith Canada and sent to prison

Can Canadian justice sink any lower? Do Canadian citizens really want to live in a totalitarian police state run by Jews? I don’t think so. Canadian justice must not be used as an instrument of oppression by a rabid and out-of-control Jewish minority.

B’nai B’rith Canada clearly does not represent the interests of most Canadian Jews, as it mendaciously claims. I know many Jews in Canada who totally reject being represented by this hate-filled organization. One such Jew is Arthur Topham’s beloved wife. If B’nai B’rith Canada has its way, her husband will be thrown into prison on trumped-up charges.

The witch hunt against Arthur Topham by B’nai B’rith Canada must stop.

If you are concerned for Arthur Topham
and would like to see him treated fairly
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

ABOUT VT EDITORS

VT EditorsVeterans Today

VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

The Failed Saudi War

The Failed Saudi War

By Ahmed Fouad

Throughout history – from the ancient empires and the priests of the pharaohs, to modern times, via pictures and screens – countries and regimes worldwide have been striving to justify the wars they wage and give various reasons for resorting to arms, as well as, trying to mark every single fault of their enemy, giving their soldiers and officials the grounds for heroism.

Inside and outside Yemen, the hopeless Saudi-American war is marching towards its sixth year, with an unprecedented intention to a bloody failure and complete fall. Saudi Arabia and its allies are increasing their craziness, trying to divert attention from the crimes against humanity by committing more horrible crimes. The pretext here is: national security, the concept that Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Cairo are always hanging on to. They are all fighting Yemenis to protect their national security while they are groveling to Netanyahu! The war against Yemen is the same as any war that happened in history; not more than leaders seeking a “monumental” and peerless military achievement that would legitimize their victory. During a historical crisis that all Arabic regimes are experiencing, the Zionist entity became their friend, ally and brother, in the face of people who are materially the poorest in the Arab Region and Arabian Peninsula.

Starting with the western media, the American primarily and the European secondly, Gulf regimes fought the first battle, led by bin Zayed and bin Salman, to buy consciences and stances, succeeding to make the war against Yemen tenable through the world. It wasn’t harder in the Arab World as Qatar joined them with its channels at the beginning of the war, then it encouraged other countries such as Egypt and Sudan to join the alliance.

At the beginning of the war, more than 5 years ago, all stances were ready to be sold, and the money of Al Saud and Al Zayed was ready to buy them. They succeeded to mark their missiles, tanks and warships by “morality” and direct them towards a defenseless nation.

The leadership of the aggression alliance achieved what appeared to be the media victory, in the inauguration of its military campaign against Yemen. All voices that had been opposing the war were silent, or silenced.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates tried so hard to conceal their intervention in Yemen using the moral cover in a region which, looking at everyone and everything in it, seems like a slaughterhouse. No matter how much they might try to beautify themselves, they will never seem peaceful. As it proceeded, the war continued to exhaust the capacity of the two states, which everyone thought endless.

As the years went by, Saudi Arabia squandered its affluent treasury, including the wealth and capacities, for the sake of the alliance and the Arab fascist regimes, and it didn’t stop squandering in the fear of a remarkable Yemeni victory that would firstly deprive it from the opportunity of enthroning the heir presumptive; secondly give Yemen the opportunity of looking at historical demands concerning regions that the Yemenis consider to be unfairly taken from them in earlier stages; and most significantly, grant Yemen the ability to demonstrate its powerful model that just beat all the Gulf states.

The Saudi treasury, that today seems to be in miserable conditions, is deepening the woes of Al Saud. Just before the war against Yemen, at the end of 2014, all the external debts owed by the SA were around $12 billion, worth nothing for the world’s richest state.

Only 5 years later, these debts increased by 1400%, according to data from the World Bank, which unmasked a record high in the debts owed by Saudi Arabia that reached $150 billion in 2018, then $183 billion at the end of 2019, and it goes on and on. It is the Yemeni victory, not the defeat of Saudi Arabia that would haunt rulers in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

As the war progressed, the Gulf media failed, in parallel with the military failure, to continue marshalling opinions that convict Yemenis and their armed forces. The available pictures of mass destruction in Yemen shows the scale of the Arab crime, whether by contributing or staying silent. International actors finally started to draw attention by sharing chilling reports about the humanitarian situation in all Yemeni regions. Nothing could be more evident than the UNICEF’s report concerning the disaster, as it says that “Every single hour, a mother and 6 children are killed throughout Yemen, and because of the maritime and airborne barbaric blockades of Yemen by the alliance, health services have completely collapsed, and it is difficult to obtain medical supplies or buy and import medicine and equipment!”

Since the war has been prolonged, it is obviously an end in itself. It uses the importation of arms, in a region that doesn’t fear any external or internal threats, as a large door for commissions and enormous profits. And with the drain of the war, all Gulf people’s properties became under the control of Western arms furnishers. The treason is now completed. On the economic side: the war caused the waste of enormous opportunities in an era where petroleum is missing its decisive influence and its incomes are declining, and on the social side: the abundant arms like a sword hanging over the heads of those who refuse to be loyal to furnishers, or think outside the box to which they are supposed to stick.

Only now, all imaginations that anyone could control Yemen over have become a well-established fact, more than being a future expectation. Today, everyone knows and conceives that the end will not be in Sanaa or Aden; but the beginning of the end will be in Jizan and Najran, and the absolute end will be in Riyadh.

Related Videos


A large popular reception in celebration of the freed knights

A large public and official celebration at Sana’a airport – tears wash away the torments of years and separation
Prisoners of the forces of aggression waving thanks when leaving

Related News

More on the Anti-Semitism Scam: Jewish Students Get Protected Status

By Philip Giraldi

Source

boy 1235707 1280 ea8d3

In both the United States and Europe there has been an increase in the passage of laws that are intended to protect Jews. Indeed, one might say that one of the few growth industries in Donald Trump’s United States has been the protection of Jewish citizens and their property from a largely contrived wave of anti-Semitism that is allegedly sweeping the nation. Even while potentially catastrophic developments both in the Middle East and the United States continue to unfold, the threat of anti-Semitism continues to find its way into much of the news cycle in the mainstream media.

A survey conducted last month in all fifty states was released with the headline “First-Ever 50-State Survey On Holocaust Knowledge Of American Millennials And Gen Z Reveals Shocking Results. Disturbing Findings Reveal Significant Number Of Millennials And Gen Z Can’t Name A Single Concentration Camp Or Ghetto, Believe That Two Million Or Fewer Jews Were Killed And A Concerning Percentage Believe That Jews Caused The Holocaust.”

The survey is based on the premise that detailed knowledge of the so-called holocaust should be an essential part of everyone’s education. Currently, 12 states already require holocaust instruction in their public school curricula, though that includes five of the six biggest states, and recently passed federal legislation will eventually fund holocaust education everywhere in the U.S.  But, of course, the real back story that one must not mention is that the standard holocaust narrative is at least as much fiction as fact and it is employed regularly to create special benefits and protections for both Jews in general and also for the State of Israel. That is why the usual sources in the media become outraged whenever it seems that the propaganda is not effective.

The ignorance of the holocaust story inevitably received wide play in the mainstream media but there are a number of things that all Americans should know about the anti-Semitism hysteria that drives the process. First of all, the extent to which there is actual anti-Semitism and the background to many of the incidents has been deliberately distorted or even ignored by the press and by the government at all levels. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews for either their religion or their ethnicity, but many of the so-called anti-Semitic incidents are actually related to the policies advanced by the state of Israel. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which have a vested interest in keeping the number of anti-Semitic incidents high, deliberately conflate the two issues in their reports.

In its 2018 report, ADL reported “1,879 acts,” in the United States during the course of the year. It is not a particularly large number given the size and population of the U.S. and also with respect to what is included. There were certainly some physical attacks, including two shooting incidents at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, but most of the incidents were much less kinetic, including shouting and name calling on university campuses between groups supportive of and opposed to Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

Europe is way ahead of the game when it comes to punishing so-called holocaust denial or anti-Semitism, which now includes any criticism of Jews and/or of Israel. As one critic put it, Europeans generally can exercise something like free speech, but the speech is limited by certain rules that must be observed. Three weeks ago, the French nationalist writer and critic of Jewish power Hervé Ryssen was jailed for the fifth time for the crime of “hate speech.” He faces up to 17 months in prison for having been found guilty of “…insult, provocation, and public defamation due to origin, ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion.” In 2016 he was imprisoned for 5 months, in 2017 for 6 months and in 2018 for one year on similar charges. He also had to pay a 2000 Euros fine to the National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism. In January 2020, Ryssen was found guilty of “contesting the existence of crimes against humanity,” i.e. questioning the so-called holocaust which labels him as a négationniste, a “holocaust denier.”

Ryssen has written numerous books on Jewish power in Europe and on Israel. His scholarship has rarely been questioned, but his willingness to speak out sometimes boldly on issues that are forbidden has put him in prison more often than not. Curiously, the French law against vilifying ethnic groups and religions has de facto only rarely been applied to protecting either Christians or Muslims. Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo continues to “blaspheme” against both religions without any intervention from the authorities, but it is careful not to make fun of Jews.

The United States is clearly moving in the direction of France, at least insofar as the Jewish community and Israel are concerned. But it is also refreshing to note that a revived progressive wing of the Democratic Party is engaging in a bit of pushback. Three weeks ago, 162 Democratic congressmen plus one Republican and one independent actually voted against an amendment intended to “Protect Jewish Students from Antisemitism at School.”

The vote took place on Sept. 16th, and was over a Republican proposed amendment to the  Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act (H.R.2574). The amendment designated anti-Semitism to be a form of discrimination included in the bill and would allow private citizens to file lawsuits claiming damages under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VI, focusing particularly on education programs. In spite of the considerable level of opposition, unfortunately the amendment still passed by a vote of 255 to 164.

According to the Concerned Women for America  (CWA), a group that lobbied for the added language, “The amendment ensures that recipients of federal education funding act against anti-Semitism in our communities. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) on college campuses is one of the ways such discrimination is being displayed.” The bill allows suits directed against any program receiving federal money if it can be claimed that one is the victim of discriminatory practices that negatively affect a protected class more than another class. Previously, the protected classes were identified as “race, color, or national origin,” but Jews and, by extension, Israel are now also protected. The specific additional language that was inserted was: “In carrying out the responsibilities of the recipient under this title, the employee or employees designated under this section shall consider antisemitism to be discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin as prohibited by this title.”

In practice, the new legislation will mean that Jewish students or their families or proxies can use Civil Rights legislation to sue educational institutions if they are made uncomfortable by the presence of critics of Israel. The real targets are groups like BDS, which have obtained some traction on university campuses and have been targeted by both the Israeli government and domestic Israel Lobby organizations. But, of course, the real danger is that once protected status is granted to one chosen group that promotes the interests of a foreign government there is no control over how “hate speech” will be defined and the consequences for American fundamental liberties will be catastrophic, moving far closer to the European model of freedom limited by “rules.”

Millennials and the Holocaust

 BY GILAD ATZMON

palestine-holocaust-humiliation.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

What is it that causes some to constantly measure how much they are hated?  What kind of people demand their host nation be intimately familiar with their past?  We learned this week that once again, some Jews are upset by the fact that a considerable segment of the American people refuse to see the past exactly as they themselves see it. 

The Jewish Forward reported over the weekend that  “survey results on Holocaust knowledge in America are in, and the findings are terrifying. Not only do they show a shocking level of ignorance, but they reinforce findings about all adults, as well as trends throughout western Europe.” Those Americans who worry that Americans are uniquely ignorant should be relieved. Americans are only just as ‘ignorant’ or maybe as ‘rebellious’ as Europeans. 

It seems that despite intensive Holocaust indoctrination and the fact that Holocaust museums and monuments have mushroomed all over the USA, fewer Americans are interested in their Jewish neighbors’ historic suffering and the question is, what can be done about it?  Perhaps they will have to erect  a holocaust museum on every American street corner. Maybe they can solve this acute educational problem by attaching a large and heavy iron Star of David to the back of every millennial. 

The Forward reports that two-thirds of young Americans didn’t know how many died in the Holocaust. For some peculiar reason it is very important to most Jewish institutions that everyone parrots the ‘six figure.’ This is peculiar, as the notion of a genocide is within the realm  of the categorical rather than the numerical.  But if these institutions insist upon reducing the holocaust into a materialist quantified figure I am inclined to ask how many Jews know the exact number of Ukranians who were starved to death in the Holodomor?  How many Jews have even heard of the Holodomor? Which Jews know about Stalin’s Jews as Israeli leading columnist Sever Phlocker identifies them. Do contemporary Jews know about the impact of the Yiddish Speaking Spanish International Brigade on Catholic Spain in 1936? How many Iraqis died in the Neocon ‘war against terror’? I ask because Haaretz Writer Ari Shavit  wrote in 2003 that  “the war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish.” If Jewish institutions want everyone else to understand  the holocaust in numerical terms, maybe it would be reasonable to expect Jews to know the numbers of colossal crimes against humanity perpetrated largely or partially by Jews. 

The Forward is upset by the fact that nearly half of millennial Goyim couldn’t name a single death camp. In return I ask  how many Jewish millennials know about Deir Yassin or can name a single Zionist massacre in Palestine in 1948 or before? How many Jewish millennials know about the Sabra and Shatila massacre?  Or the  Kefar Qana Massacre?  What do they know about the malnutrition in Gaza caused directly by years of blockade imposed by the Jewish State?  

Apparently “11% of respondents harbor ‘intensely’ antisemitic views by agreeing to six or more anti-Jewish statements. That’s 28 million Americans” the Forward writes. I was curious to find out what are those “intensely” anti-Semitic views. Apparently the survey refers to the following list produced by the ADL in early 2020.   

ADL.jpg

According to the ADL, back in January  “44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that ‘Jews stick together more than other Americans,’ 25 percent agreed that ‘Jews always like to be at the head of things’ and 24 percent believed that ‘Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America.’

Americans should be thrilled by the ADL’s findings and the recent study of millennials’ attitude to Jews.  These  studies  suggest that despite the tyranny of correctness,  Americans , at large and millennials in particular, aren’t blind to the reality in which they live. They still think independently and authentically.  Yet, despite the fact that almost half of Americans admit to being aware of Jewish clannish exclusivist culture, America is kind to its Jews as peace and harmony are embedded in its Christian ethos. Yet one issue must be raised. If the ADL and the recent holocaust study represent Jewish American attitudes to their gentile neighbours,  it may reveal that 2% of the American population disapprove of  the legitimate views of 44% of Americans as ‘antisemitic.’  Nearly half of the Americans are castigated as ‘racists’ for noticing the generally accepted notion that “Jews stick together.”  By doing so the ADL & Co actually confirms that from a Jewish perspective  it is ‘all about the few not the many.’ 

Admittedly, the situation is potentially volatile. Still, if fighting antisemitism is so important for American  Jews maybe people like Alan Dershowitz who struggles desperately to clear his name of underage sex allegations are not the best candidates to preach to Americans about who they should read and what history and education are all about.

 Watch Alan Dershowitz preaching to the American people  about history and morality: https://youtu.be/PkS2wonicuI

Thanks for supporting Gilad’s battle for truth and justice.

My battle for truth involves a serious commitment and some substantial expenses. I have put my career on the line, I could do with your support..

Denote

Saudi Arabia Commits another Massacre in Yemen’s Al-Jawf, Kills Civilians at Their Homes

Saudi Arabia Commits another Massacre in Yemen’s Al-Jawf, Kills Civilians at Their Homes

By Staff, Agencies

Saudi-led military aircraft carried out new deadly strikes in Yemen, targeting a residential area in the northern province of al-Jawaf, as part of the Riyadh regime’s ongoing aerial bombardment campaign against its crisis-hit southern neighbor.

Yemen’s al-Masirah TV network cited locals as saying that the Saudi warplanes struck two houses in al-Masafa al-Marazeeq area of the al-Hazm district on Wednesday afternoon, leaving nine civilians, including two women and a boy, dead.

Seven other people, including 5 children and two women, sustained injuries.

Earlier in the day, Saudi-led warplanes launched five airstrikes against al-Aqsha’ area in the same district of Jawf province. There were, however, no immediate reports of casualties.

Separately, the Saudi warplanes also pounded an area in the Kitaf wa al-Boqe’e district of the mountainous northwestern province of Sa’ada. The number of casualties was not immediately known.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been conducting a bloody military aggression in Yemen with help from its regional allies, and using arms supplied by its Western backers. The aim of the war has been to bring Yemen’s former president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, back to power and defeat the Ansarullah revolutionary movement.

Yemeni armed forces have been boosting their military capabilities and responding to the attacks using domestic missiles and drones, and targeting sensitive oil installations and military sites deep inside the Saudi territory.

More than 100,000 people have already lost their lives as a result of the military aggression in the past five years.

The war has also destroyed, damaged and shut down Yemen’s infrastructure, including a large number of hospitals and clinics.

The Yemeni population has been subjected to large-scale hunger and diseases aggravated by the naval blockade imposed on the country by the coalition of aggressors.

Related

Poles Got Upset by Putin’s Words, Accusing Russia of Anti-Semitism

February 09, 2020

Source

by Ruslan Ostashko

Translated by Sasha and captioned by Leo.

Not only the Russian president’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel caused bad pain in the hinds of the Euro-Ukros and our native liberal wish washers, it also offended the Poles when Putin reminded the world of their nationalists’ inhuman policies.
The Russian leader’s visit to Israel has now ended a few days ago but the behinds in the post-Soviet area are still burning, not only those of the Moscow ‘creatilibs’ and the Kiev Euro-Ukros. The thing here is that, in effect, in his speech before the Jews, Putin reminded them that they never got any compensation for the European, Polish and Baltic nationalist active participation in the Holocaust.

Vladimir Putin: “The crimes committed by the Nazis, their well-thought-through, pre-planned, Final Solution, for the Jews that is, my respectable colleagues, one of the darkest and shameful pages in the newest world history. But let us not forget that this crime had accomplices. They often exceeded their masters in cruelty. Not only the Nazis serviced the death factories, concentration camps. But also their accomplices in many European countries did it as well. More Jews were murdered in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, where these bandits operated, than anywhere else. Thus around 1.4 million Jews perished in the Ukraine. 220,000 Jews were murdered in Lithuania. This – I wish to draw your attention to, dear friends – this is 95% of the pre-war Jewish population of that country. 77,000 [killed] in Latvia, and so on. Only a few hundred of Latvian Jews survived the Holocaust.”
It is no secret to anyone in Israel who is the subject here. And, what is most important, while Germany has paid money in full for Hitler’s crimes, neither Poland, nor Latvia, nor the Ukraine paid a penny for the deeds of those who they regard as their ideological forefathers. In Poland these were the nationalists from Armia Krajowa, who were subordinate to the [Polish] exile government in London. Not only these Polish-brewed Nazis actively counteracted the red partisans from Armia Ludowa, they also killed Jews.
Source – Reedus. “In 2018, a book by a journalist Wojciech Lada ‘Criminals from Armia Krajowa’ was released in Poland, which informs of multiple instances of killings of Jews by units belonging to this organisation.” According to the author, members of Armia Krajowa usually explained their crimes with the fact that the Jews sympathised with the Soviets and helped the communists – and hated the Poles. Often they spoke of liquidation of Communist Jewish gangs.”

Behold a couple of examples of the Polish Nazis’ crimes (*Graphic images used in the video from 3:38-4:07*): “Members of the ‘White Colours’ unit of Armia Krajowa Legions infantry regiment marked history with infamous deeds. Upon the order from the unit commander Lieutenant Kazimierz Olchowik, alias ‘Zawisza’, on 17 August, 1944, eight militiamen killed 50 Jews, including women and children, which had escaped from the labour camp in the town of Skarżysko-Kamienna. Their belongings were given to Zawisza and the bodies remained unburied. This group of Jews was hiding in the forests not far from the village of Siekerna, Świętokrzyskie Voivodship. They were seeking help and wished to join the partisans from the Armia Krajowa. A year earlier, partisans from the special unit of Sector II of Armia Krajowa in Cmielów Precinct shot 7 Jews, who were hidden by a Polish woman Maria Szuba. The killing was done in her presence. Before the killing, the Poles demanded money from those Jews.”
There. While the normal Poles hid Jews, the Polish Nazis killed those they discovered, including women and children. When asked what was the difference between Armia Krajowa and Zondercommando SS, Polish authorities and journalists begin drooling uncontrollably. And then they invent this move. They start writing that Poland has no anti-semitism but it exists within the damned Muscovites.

Source – Telegram channel “Horde”: “It’s rather complicated over there. And now there is Putin on top of that. This is why the Polish magazine ‘Polityka’ decided to serve Putin a cruel retaliatory blow and describe the Russian anti-semitism. Because anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe, in America, while, according to the Jewish organisation themselves, it is all quiet in Russia.”
Indeed, on one hand, admits the periodical, “according to all the research Russia is not an antisemitic country.” However “Polityka” bravely assumes: “What if in Russia they are ‘the wrong’ Jews?” The ‘other’ ones have left while the inattentive and indifferent ones stayed.

Source – Telegram-channel “Horde”: “For instance, in 2018 an unknown vandal drew a swastika on the monument to Armenian-Russian friendship in Novokuznetsk. The ‘normal ones’ would have shouted foul because it is obvious anti-semitism. But the Russian Jews never even noticed. The Russian Jews also lack sensitivity to everyday Judeophobia. Where the informed Europeans would run circles around the issue, draw the society’s attention, the Russian Jews don’t care, explaining that ‘it’s a trifle and nothing to make noise about’ (27%) and ‘I’ve solved it myself’ (23%).”

Get it, right? Russia is so insidious that it has bred a special sub-species of Mordor Jews, whom nothing can move. And it did it apparently solely in order to get back at the Poles, whose folklore still has an amulet called “A Jew with a Coin.” This is what written about it in the ‘respectable’ Wikipedia, which we cannot suspect of Russophilia.

Source – Polish article, “A Jew with a Coin” in Wikipedia: “According to the Polish anthropologist and ethnographer Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, the image of an elderly Jew in Polish cultural consciousness has features of an alien community which is not an integral part of Polish national self-identification. The combination of a greedy Jew and coins is associated for Poles with the ancient negative stereotype of the Jewish people who allegedly have a ‘magic ability’ to manipulate and govern the money that does not belong to them, gaining a considerable profit from it.”

“According to the Polish anthropologist Bożena Umińska-Keff, the image of an old Jew is a reflectorial expression of negative emotions which evokes the traditional Polish anti-semitism and exits within the system of viewing a Jew as blood-sucking, oppressive magician.”

It is the Poles who view the Jews negatively which is admitted by the Polish anthropologists themselves, but anti-semitism is supposed to be in Russia, who, on top of that, have bred for themselves the aforementioned sturdy and able to refrain from making a scandal sub-species of Jews. Probably from the descendants of those whom the Armia Krajowa failed to kill, those who managed to find the normal Soviet partisans and escape the Hitlerites. How can one listening to all of that have a normal attitude towards the Polish government and the state governed by them? It is a rhetorical question. Russia is a multinational country. And although we do have inter-ethnic frictions, no one in our society, except a miserable handful of marginal elements, makes Nazis into heroes.

The Poles, as well as the Balts and Ukrainians have different norms. They “zig” with one hand, praising those who partook in the Holocaust and other Hitler’s crimes, and with the other they argue that the local Nazi varieties fought against the Germans for independence, having suffered cruelly from the damned Soviet regime. In my mind, we have nothing to talk about with these melted brains. Russia should sever diplomatic relations with all the countries that make heroes of the Nazis and forget about their existence. They will soon be dealt with by the keen-on-profit Israel supported by the USA. And then they will find out what it means to be down and out.

Interview poll of Russian people on the street, by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: Do you believe that the Poles view the events of WWII different than the Russians?

Middle-aged woman – “I think yes. If it is presented over there in this way, it means that the new generation thinks so. I believe that the Poles who are now 60-70 do not think that way. At least those who grew up in the “Social Camp” (Mix of the words ‘socialism’ and ‘concentration camp.’)”

Young man – “Well, every nationality has its own view, I guess. The Russians… I won’t distinguish them according to their ethnicity, because back then, there was no such difference. There were only Russians. As for Poles, I don’t know, maybe they have their own view – most likely.”

Young woman – “I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. I believe that people view it according to their mentality and upbringing. It seems everyone views it differently because of the differences in mentality, depending on how people were brought up, with what values, and what values they have now.”

Middle-aged man – “Naturally it is obvious from their declarations in the past years, particularly lately. The Poles… their leadership… their authorities they are trying to overturn history. It’s their attitude to our country, our Russia.”

Middle-aged man – “I don’t know about the Poles as a nation, we are talking about the politicians. Politicians view it differently, the way that is profitable for them at the moment. And in the most of European countries… Well, maybe not in the most of European countries, but in Poland and Ukraine they definitely view it differently. This is more profitable for them.

Old man – “I think every nation has its own views on its own history and on the history of the nations around. That’s firstly. Secondly, I think every Pole… something in his soul remains after ‘Poland from Sea to Sea’, from the Polish Commonwealth. Naturally they’d like to return to the past condition. And so certain moves are being used for that end.”

Young man – “I think it is so. In particular, in my perspective, the well-known Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact allows the Poles to think rather bad. It is unconditional that the results of the war… it was a big victory. Yes, it is unquestionable achievement of our fathers and grandfathers. But the problem is that, as a result, we have this: we moved the conflict to the Polish territory. This is what it turned to be.”

Afterword by Ruslan Ostashko to his PolitRussia YouTube channel subscribers:

Dear friends, we are very grateful to you for your support for our channel. Thanks to your financial aid we are able to have a really independent editorial policy and make videos that you like. Although this does not change the fact that you may disagree with our authors and keep robust discussion in the comments section. Personally I see it as absolutely normal. We are living people who express their personal views on the subject at hand. And it is very cool that our audience has their own views and we are having active arguments and discussions in the comments section.

The future of our country is not in the view of one big official but it is rather in the ability to listen and hear the many. I regard everyone who donates funds for our work as our share holder. This money is your investment. The investment in the future of our country, in the coverage of very different events. It is an investment into education of our youth, in the substantiated thrashing of the liberals on YouTube, the platform they always regarded as their realm. It is an important and needed work which we do together with you. We think it is appropriate not only to share with you our successes and plans, but also the difficulties we face. This allows us to search for solutions together, overcome the complications in our editorial work and move forward for the good of our Motherland.

Before the New Year I shared a pleasant news with you about opening of our channel in Spanish language which was supposed to work for the audiences in Latin America. This is an important and promising region where our country can strengthen its influence and collect quite real bonuses for us all. Now, with a deep regret I must state that we are halting this channel’s work. It is due to financial complications. One sponsor helped us to open and develop this channel. He deeply believes in the importance of that region and that is why he was ready to invest his own money in development of this channel. Now, however he encountered financial difficulties of his own and ceased financing of the channel. Well, at least there is a silver lining. This story nudged me to the thought that we can develop particular topics and sections if this particular topic finds a particular sponsor.

Your current support is directed at maintaining our editorial work within the range that we determine ourselves among our team. It is important for us to maintain a balance of topics which ensure a large volume of views and, accordingly, a large income from the ads: Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states etc., and the topics which are really important for the life in our country. Unfortunately the internal topics do not get as many views as we would like them. This is why you often write in the comments that it wouldn’t be too bad to pay more attention to those topic rather than to, let’s say, Ukraine. Now I wish to ask you. Perhaps among our subscribers we could find medium and large investors from 100k rubles ($1,560.83) a month, who are ready to invest their money in particular topics and sections or even open a separate channel?

Regional problems, corruption in particular organisations, inequality of rights of men and women during divorce – the topics are plentiful. Such investments would allow us to direct particular resources to these topics. Let’s think about it together. If there are such investors among our subscribers, please write to me privately in the social networks or to ruslan@politrussia.com. And I wish to tell to the rest of our viewers that even a transfer of 50 or 100 rubles can be a great help for our office to remain afloat. There are many of us. Let us not forget about that. The bank details can be found at www.politrussia.com and in the description to this video. Thank you. You are the best.

Addressing the Lies Spread about Gilad

 BY GILAD ATZMON

For more than a decade and a half I have been subjected to a relentless and sometimes violent smear campaign. I have been accused of all sorts of ‘hate crimes’ including the totally ludicrous claim that I advocate the ‘burning of synagogues,[ ‘incitements of violence,’ and have routinely been labelled, among other slurs, a ‘notorious anti semite’ and a ‘Holocaust denier.’ Of course, if any of these accusations had merit, I would have spent time behind bars. The truth, as should be embarrassing for the name callers, is that I have never been charged with  hate speech or any other crime. No law enforcement authority anywhere has ever even questioned me about anything I wrote or said. I perform and teach all over the world, including in Germany and Austria, where ‘holocaust denial’ is vigorously prosecuted.

My detractors boast that they intend to ruin my reputation, smear and impoverish me and any others they deem improperly critical of Israel. I should have written this piece long ago but I found it demeaning to deny baseless accusations founded on lies and misquotes. For the record, I am not an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, nor a conspiracy theorist. 

My detractors are now terrorizing the extended music community in an attempt to accomplish their insane mission.  I defy the idea that we live in a ‘post truth era.’ Athens, for me, is a core of inspiration and truth seeking and is my life time adventure. Here, in response to the fabrications attributed to me by various Jewish institutions such as the JC and the CAA,   are the actual statements I made. 

Gilad on Burning Synagogues: Rationality vs. Justification

Zionist pressure groups have claimed that I advocated burning  synagogues. The origin of this preposterous assertion is a misquote attributed to me in a Guardian article in 2005. According to the Guardian “Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestine advocate, gave a talk to students this month, arguing: ‘I’m not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.’”  A week later the Guardian agreed to publish my letter in which I explain and refute this claim. “Your quote …[of me] is inaccurate and taken out of context. By no means did I justify any form of violence against Jews, Jewish interests or any innocent people. In the School of Oriental and African Studies we were debating the question of rationality of anti-semitism. I claimed that since Israel presents itself as the ‘state of the Jewish people’, and bearing in mind the atrocities committed by the Jewish state against the Palestinians, any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.”

At the time, pro Zionist online discussion groups complained that the police failed to charge me with incitement of hatred. The reason for that  is obvious, there was no evidence, I never advocated burning synagogues. I have always opposed any form of violence against Jews or anyone else!  The British authorities understood that I was discussing the ‘discourse of rationality’ (Reasoning) and not the ‘context of rationalisation’ (Justification).  Horrendous war crimes are grossly unethical but may also be rational. The decision to nuke Hiroshima, for instance, was a rational decision although insanely immoral. The same applies to Israel shelling Gaza with white phosphorus. A calculated military decision was made to engage in these vile war crimes.  Examining the rationale for such crimes may be our best hope to prevent them. Rationality and morality are categorically distinct concepts as my actual words made clear.   

Is Gilad a ‘Holocaust Denier?’

I have been accused of being a ‘Holocaust denier’ or a Holocaust revisionist.  This is simply false. I have never denied the Holocaust nor have I written a single revisionist text as I am not an historian of any sort.  I guess no need to  mention once again that my mother’s family suffered enormously in that terrible period. 

I am a philosopher. As such, I argue that this chapter in our past should be treated not as a religion or dogma, but must, like all other past events, be subject to scrutiny and open discussion. If history is the art of narrating the past as we move along, then revising our understanding of  the past is the true meaning of the historical endeavour. In my work I argue that engaging in a discourse of history that is open to revision is at the core of the ethical insight.

It is also crucial to mention that the notion of ‘holocaust religion’ was actually coined by the legendary Israeli philosopher prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz back in the 1970s. Leibowitz was followed by Adi Ophir, another prominent Israeli philosopher who offered his own criticism of the Holocaust religion in his paper On Sanctifying the Holocaust: An Anti-Theological Treatise.

Did Gilad really say that Hitler was right after all?

My  words as they appear in my 2011 book, “The Wandering Who?”  shows that I said the opposite: even the thought by some that Hitler might have been right is presented as an unacceptable scenario. 

“We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all.’ The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran.” (The Wandering Who? pg 179)

As you can read, my actual words are diametrically opposed to the manufactured misquotes attributed to me by various Zionist pressure groups. I used the extreme example of a nuclear war to argue that Israel should finally seek peace with its neighbours to deny anyone the thought that Hitler was right after all. 

Did Gilad ask Jews to apologise for the Holocaust?

In 2014, in the light of huge anti Jewish protests in Paris, I wrote a piece titled Holocaust Day – The Time Is Ripe For A Jewish Apology.  In the article I briefly elaborated on historical hatred of Jews and the Zionist promise to prevent the Jewish fate by ‘fixing’ the Jews and making them ‘people like all other people.’ I closed the article with the following paragraph.  “Many Jews around the world are commemorating the Holocaust this week. But if I am correct, maybe the time is ripe for Jewish and Zionist organisations to draw the real and most important lesson from the Holocaust. Instead of constantly blaming the Goyim for inflicting pain on Jews, it is time for Jews to look in the mirror and try to identify what it is in Jews and their culture that evokes so much fury. It may even be possible that some Jews would take this opportunity to apologise to the Gentiles around them for evoking all this anger.”

Nowhere in the article did I suggest Jews apologise for the Holocaust. I accept that my words may be infuriating to those who are contemptuous of conciliatory efforts. I reckon that it would not be such a bad idea for Campaign Against Antisemitism to apologise to Labour members and Jeremy Corbyn whom they smeared mercilessly. The British Chief Rabbi could join them, as might the editors of the three British Jewish papers who literally referred to Corbyn as an ‘existential threat’ and practically equated him with Hitler. Such a peace-seeking approach on the part of some Jewish institutions will help to diffuse the anger these bodies engendered  during the GE 2019 amongst many segments of the British Left.  

Is Gilad a “promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?”

According to the ADL, I’m an “outspoken promoter of classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and a fierce critic of the State of Israel.” I am indeed a fierce critic of Israel and  I am outspoken. But not only do I not promote ‘antisemitic conspiracy theories,’ as I repeatedly state throughout my entire body of work, ‘there are no Jewish conspiracies. Everything is done in the open’ and in front of our eyes. 

What I do observe is that  we cannot speak about any of that: Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. The Israel Lobby dominates American foreign policy, it pushes for a conflict with Iran. Similarly, the Congress’ performance of one standing ovation after the other for Netanyahu wasn’t a secret ritual. In Britain, Jewish institutions such as the Jewish papers, the Chief Rabbi and a Jewish charity declared an open war on the opposition party and its leader. None of that was ‘conspiratorial’ or secretive. We are dealing with mainstream news, yet we dare not talk about it let alone criticise it.

 Evoking animosity in others

In 2013 I was interviewed by Swiss writer Alimuddin Usmanani who asked me to define what it means to be a Jew. My answer was short and conclusive: “To be a Jew is to evoke animosity in others.” My answer was provocative and at least as challenging as the official Tikun Olam’s answer to the same question, i.e., ‘to be a Jew is to fix the world.’ However, while there are no statistics that show that Jews are actually engaged in fixing the world, my critics within the CAA, the ADL, The Jewish Chronicle and other Zionists institutions publish polls on an almost  daily basis that suggest that Jews are hated globally and locally.

The ethos that drove early Labour Zionism both ideologically and politically was the acceptance that, for one reason or another, Jews can’t assimilate  and would be safer somewhere else where they would become, through political training, into ‘people like all other people.’ I do not say that Jews should be hated. Rather like those early Zionists, I contend that Jewish institutions must self-reflect. Instead of accusing Goyim, Brits, Labour members, Americans, etc. they should engage in a true introspective process. Crying about antisemitism and/or terrorising jazz clubs and music venues won’t solve the Jewish problem, it will make it worse and the situation is clearly deteriorating as the ADL/CAA/CST statistics on anti semitism reveal.   

Is David Duke a humanist?

I oppose all forms of biologically oriented politics. I oppose all forms of politics that are defined by race, gender or sexual orientation. I contend that politics ought to unite us as equals rather than divide us on the basis of biology. David Duke and I hold distinctly opposite positions on this and other fundamental issues.

In March 2014 I gave an interview to larmurerie.fr/ I can’t trace the original French article but a  Google translation of the French original exists on my site. I was asked by the French Journalist the following question: Many French people share your opinion. For example, there is a French thinker, Hervé Ryssen, who uses the same metaphor as you when you talk about the mirror, saying that when a Jew accuses you of being an anti-semite, you just have to read the mirror image of the argument to reveal his racism towards goyim.”

My answer was as follows. “I actually use the word projection, but the mirror image is no doubt similar. And projection, by the way, is something that Freudtaught us about. You know, we have to admit that some of the most interesting humanists in the history of the West are Jews: Christ, Spinoza, Marx were Jews. Why is that?…Now there is something very interesting and it’s again the first time I’m saying it. The left is devastated by David Duke for instance. He was in the KKK when he was young. But here is something quite amazing: I read him and I was shocked to find out that this guy knows more about Jewish identity than I do! How could a supposedly ‘racist’ Gentile who probably never entered a synagogue knows more than I do about Judaism? The reason is in fact very simple: he is a proud white man. He’s interested in nationalism, in the culture of his own people, so he understands things that I am not even allowed to think about. Believe it or not, even as a Jew, I wasn’t allowed to think of myself as a racist. I was a racist, maybe I am still one, but I was not allowed to acknowledge it. Once he acknowledges that he’s talking about white people’s rights, in a way he thinks like Avigdor Lieberman! But in fact, he is way better than Lieberman. David Duke is a humanist because he says, «I want to celebrate my right and you should celebrate your rights»  whether you are Muslim or black or whatever. He believes that all people should celebrate their rights, this is his current philosophy. Avidgor Liberman is not a humanist, because he wants to celebrate his rights at the expense of other people.”

In my book. Humanism is primarily a universal adventure. Duke, today, is no doubt a separatist. He prefers to see people  living in partitioned enclaves, he opposes immigration and his political thought is racially oriented, yet, if I understand it correctly, he believes that all people regardless of their race, ethnicity, skin colour or religion should enjoy such a right. At least in comparison with the right wing Zionist philosophy that adheres to the idea that one people should celebrate their self determination on the expense of another people, Duke’s current offering is more ethical, universal and humane. I understand that some Jews may be upset by the comparison, however, the way to deal with disagreement is to produce a counter argument rather than terrorising the music community.  I myself hold completely opposing views to Duke’s on the matter: I believe that people should learn to live together and seek harmony. This is why I left Israel. However, despite of my disagreement with Duke on some fundamental and crucial issues, in consistance with the Western intellectual tradition, I take pride in making an effort to understand positions before I criticize them. 

Does Gilad Hate Jews?

As I have stated time and time again, I have never criticized Jews or anyone else as a people, a race, an ethnicity or a biology. I challenge my detractors to produce a single reference in my work that contradicts this. No one has ever produced the goods. In my work there is no hatred whatsoever, against Jews or anyone else. Many years ago, I accepted that some Jews regard me as a ‘self hater’ yet, I fail to see how me hating myself is so unsettling for other Jews.   

In 2014 I produced a statement that some mistakenly saw as an admission of ‘Jew hatred’ and racism. At the time, I engaged in a brief twitter exchange with @OnePoundOne, an Israeli nationalist who frequently urged the murder of Palestinians, Muslims and Arabs.

On one occasion @OnePoundOne insisted  that ‘as a Jew’ I should support his violent anti Arab/Muslim rampage. I replied:

“@OnePoundOne 1. I am not a Jew anymore 2. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Jew in you.”

@OnePoundOne’s twitter account was suspended shortly after our exchange for spreading hate speech and advocating violence.

suspended.jpg

Despite the suspension of @OnePoundOne’s account, some examples of his hateful communications survive on the internet in the form of screenshots.

onepound threats.jpg

I have never before publicly addressed the criticism over my answer to @OnePoundOne. Anti-Semites are people who hate Jews for being Jews. Anti-Semites do not accept that Jews can stop being Jews and morph into something else.  My response to @OnePoundOne dismantles this racist doctrine:

1.  I suggest that one can choose to stop being a Jew. In this view, Jewishness is a cultural or religious construct and is not either racially or biologically determined.

2. To the extent I myself retain that culture, I admit that I detest that cultural aspect in myself.

3. Further, I rejected any cultural impetus that may exist in @OnePoundOne’s hateful statements that called for violence against Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims ‘as a Jew’.

But there is a fascinating intellectual exercise to apply here that helps explain my reaction to @OnePoundOne’s vile incitement of violence. Replacing the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Protestant’  in my answer to @OnePoundOne would read as follows: “1. I am not a Protestant anymore 2. I indeed despise the Protestant in me (whatever is left) 3. I absolutely detest the Protestant in you.” While  some might find this offensive, it is not racist as Protestantism is a belief system rather than a racial identification. If we proceed with this exercise and replace the word Jew with a biological category such as skin-colour or race, the statement collapses instantly as ‘I am not  Black anymore’ is a meaningless statement for someone who is Black. Similarly, ‘I am not Caucasian anymore’ is just as silly and hollow. In other words, my answer to @OnePoundOne could never be grasped as a ‘racist’ offensive statement as it defies the idea that Jews are actually a race, as I myself managed to stop being one.

I am afraid to inform my detractors once again, that at least intellectually, I operate as a philosopher. If they want to fight my ideas, they will first have to invest some energy in understanding what I am saying. 

Look at these clueless British students recycling misquotes without verifying their authenticity or their meanings:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYecmT2GhHQ

Final words on the matter

I accept that my deconstruction of Jewish Identity politics upsets some Jews: no one likes to be scrutinized or criticized. But my work is limited to questioning politics and culture. I  have never criticized Jews or anyone else in racial, biological, physiological or ethnic terms. I dig into ideology, politics and culture assuming that these three must be subject to criticism. The fact that I am smeared and defamed for doing so, only suggests to me and others that in the eyes of some self identified Jews, their politics, ideology and culture are beyond criticism. In fact, this is exactly the supremacist view I deconstruct in my work.

I would expect that by now, considering their relentless efforts to destroy me, my detractors would have managed to spot a single incriminating line in my work so they don’t have to keep fabricating quotes and taking words out of context while terrorizing jazz clubs in between. So far they have failed to do so. This raises the assumption that their insane campaign against me, one that reflects very badly on my detractors, suggests that I have something very important to say.

I honestly believe that if my detractors would engage with my writing instead of attempting to burn my books, anti-Semitism wouldn’t be an issue in Britain or anywhere else. Jews would enjoy their lives and live in harmony with their neighbors.  I guess that in the minds of some Zionists crucifying me is the way forward. Some people must be foolish not to see that they turn me into an intellectual martyr, a Jazzus figure.   


My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services and security expenses. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

US Returns to Ashes of 1945

by Finian Cunningham

US Vice President Mike Pence used his speech at the Holocaust memorial last week to bang a war drum at Iran. It revealed a deplorable lack of dignity and understanding of the event, despite Pence’s efforts to appear solemn.

But not only that. It showed too how out of touch the United States – at least its political leadership – is with the rest of the world and a growing collective concern among others to ensure international peace.

Maybe that’s why Britain’s Prince Charles appeared to snub Pence, declining to shake his hand while attending the commemoration of the Holocaust and 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Charles warmly greeted other dignitaries, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and France’s Emmanuel Macron. It was curious how he blanked Pence.

But there again, maybe not that curious. Pence and the Trump administration seem to be hellbent on starting a war with Iran. A war that would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly ignite a world conflagration.

Washington’s wanton threats of violence against Iran and its recent assassination of one of Iran’s top military leaders stands as a shocking repudiation of international law and the UN Charter. It’s the kind of conduct more akin to an organized crime syndicate rather than a supposedly democratic state.

The UN Charter was created in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War precisely to prevent repetition of the worst conflagration in history and all its barbaric crimes, including the Nazi Holocaust. Over 5o million people died in that war, and nearly half of them belonged to the Soviet Union.

The prevention of war is surely the most onerous responsibility of the UN Security Council. Yet the United States is the one power that routinely ignores international law and the UN Charter to unilaterally launch wars or military interventions. Washington’s threats against Iran are, unfortunately, nothing new. This is standard American practice.

Britain's Prince Charles speaks to U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the World Holocaust Forum
© REUTERS / RONEN ZVULUN

Snub or No Snub? Netizens Laugh Off Prince Charles’ Explanation After Not Shaking Hands With Mike Pence

When world leaders addressed the Holocaust memorial held in Israel last Wednesday it was obvious – albeit implicitly – from their words that the US has become an isolated rogue state owing to its inveterate belligerence.

Putin, Macron, Prince Charles and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier all invoked the need for collective commitment to international law and peace. They implied that such a commitment was the best way to honour those who were killed in the Holocaust and the Second World War; the surest way to prevent the barbarity of fascist ideology and persecution ever to be repeated.

Those speakers one after another denounced the ideology of demonizing others which fuels hatred and wars. How pertinent is that to the way Washington routinely demonizes other nations and foreign leaders?

In sharp contrast, when the American vice president made his address, his apparent solemnity was contradicted by a blood-curdling call to arms against Iran, which he accused of being the “leading state purveyor of anti-semitism”. Pence urged the whole world “to stand strong against the Islamic Republic of Iran”, spoken as if he was spitting out the words like venom.

There is little doubt that Pence was formulating a rationale for military confrontation with Iran. That has been the consistent policy of the Trump administration over the past three years.

It was no surprise that Pence’s speech was in sync with the usual bellicose rhetoric from Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu towards Iran. But what was arresting was just how out of sync Pence and the Trump administration are with the rest the world.

US Vice President Mike Pence speaking at the fifth World Holocaust Forum, 23 January 2020.
© SPUTNIK / ALEXEY NIKOLSKY

World War II for Dummies? US Vice President Hails Liberators of Auschwitz Death Camp, ‘Forgets’ to Name Them

It was an odious spectacle to see Pence don a somber face as he talked about the victims of the Holocaust, while his own state wages war against any foreign nation whenever and wherever Washington deems. At an event that was supposed to reflect on the horror and evil of war, Pence showed he had no understanding or self-awareness.

That’s what is perplexing about many American politicians. They seem ignorant of history (Pence gave no acknowledgement to the Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz and other death camps); they are consumed by self-righteousness and arrogance like a puritan preacher without an ounce of humanity.

Anyone who reflects on the horror of war would surely be advocating the respect of and adherence to international law, commitment to peace, and the earnest pursuit of dialogue and partnership among nations.

Russia’s Putin has repeatedly called for the members of the UN Security Council to urgently get together in order to guarantee a multilateral commitment to peace. Putin has also repeatedly appealed to the United States to get serious about negotiating renewed arms control treaties. Washington has ignored those latter calls.

Participants in the Jewish event of Holocaust remembrance walk in the former Nazi German World War II death camp of Auschwitz shortly before the start of the annual March of the Living in which young Jews from around the world walk from Auschwitz to Birkenau in memory of the 6 million Holocaust victims, in Oswiecim, Poland, Thursday, May 2, 2019

© AP PHOTO / CZAREK SOKOLOWSKIIf One’s Outraged by Words About Polish Anti-Semitism, One Should Delve Into History – Ex-Polish MP

The American national myth, evolved over recent decades since 1945, views itself as “exceptional” from all other nations. That translates as the US presuming to be “superior” and “above the law that others are bound by”.

Mike Pence’s menacing words and attitude at the Holocaust memorial showed a disturbing and pernicious disconnect with the need for preventing war and genocide. It was a disgraceful dishonouring of victims.

Out of sync with the world, the US has returned to the ashes and lawlessness of 1945.

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

On Holocaust Memorial Day US Embassy Falsely Claims America Liberated Auschwitz

By Alan Macleod

Source

he United States Embassy in Denmark has apologized for a statement it made earlier this week that incorrectly claimed that it was American troops that liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. In fact, Red Army troops reached its gates on January 27, 1945. “We acknowledge the important contributions of all Allied Forces during WWII and remember the 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust,” the correction read.

U.S. Embassy Denmark

@usembdenmark

I går skrev vi ved en fejl, at Auschwitz-Birkenau blev befriet af amerikanske soldater. Det var selvfølgeligt sovjetiske soldater. Vi anerkender alle de allierede styrkers vigtige bidrag under Den Anden Verdenskrig og mindes de 6 millioner jøder, der døde under Holocaust.

U.S. Embassy Denmark

@usembdenmark

Yesterday, we inadvertently wrote that US troops liberated Auschwitz-Birkenau. It was of course liberated by Soviet troops. We acknowledge the important contributions of all Allied Forces during WWII and remember the 6 million Jews who perished during the Holocaust.

The incorrect statement was immediately met with scorn online from those who felt this was another example of Soviet erasure and an insult to the enormous sacrifice the U.S.S.R. made to defeat fascism in Europe. Users replied with pictures of Red Army troops liberating the camp. Those same people would likely be unimpressed at the news that Wikipedia has been removing those same pictures, a fact discovered by Lithuanian journalist Vladimir Vodo. While the encyclopedia’s administrators argued that they might not technically be in the public domain, erasing images of the Russian liberation of Auschwitz on Holocaust Memorial Day is not an optically wise move.

The Soviet Union is responsible for killing about four of every five Nazis during the conflict and suffered around 95 percent of all Allied Army casualties. The scale of their loss was enormous; the current Russian government estimates the Soviet losses at 26.6 million dead – around sixty-three times the total American sacrifice in both Europe and the Pacific. Even comparatively tiny states like Latvia and Lithuania lost a similar number of people as the entire United States. 

This is far from common knowledge in America; a 2015 poll found that just 11 percent of Americans knew that the Soviet Union contributed the most to the defeat of Nazi Germany, with the large majority who answered picking the U.S. as the most important nation. This finding was replicated all over Western Europe, except in the United Kingdom, where Britons incorrectly believed they primarily defeated the Soviet Union.

This, argued Vox’s Dylan Matthews, is part of a “successful 70-year campaign to convince people the USA and not the USSR beat Hitler.” He notes, for instance, that in 1945, 57 percent of French citizens recognized the U.S.S.R. to have contributed the most to the effort to beat Nazi Germany. This, despite the fact that the French had virtually no contact with the Soviet Union, and that both the U.K. and the U.S. fought bitter and protracted wars across most of Northern France. By 2004, however, only 20 percent knew the U.S.S.R. was the most important in Germany’s defeat, with 58 percent choosing America. Decades of Cold War hostilities meant that any sympathetic portrayal of Russians for their suffering was politically inexpedient. Therefore, the 26.6 million dead were consigned to the trashcan of history.

Fear and mistrust of Russia continue to this day as its president Vladimir Putin is widely accused of being the mastermind behind Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory. Generalized anti-Russian xenophobia is common in popular culture in a way that would not be tolerated for other groups. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, claimed that Russians are “genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate” and “gain favor,” while media in 2018 was full of scare stories about Russian anchor babies in the U.S. Despite the fact that Putinism is an expressly anti-communist, neoliberal ideology, commentators feel free to use words like “Russian” and “Soviet” interchangeably, describing senior Putin officials as communists, drawing from a deep well of resentment built up over the past 100 years. The latest Gallup poll found that the majority of Americans see Russia as a “critical threat” and 73 percent see the country unfavorably – a figure three times higher than during the last days of the Cold War.

Located in southern Poland, Auschwitz is the name given to a complex of dozens of concentration and extermination camps where over one million people were exterminated, the majority of them Jews. The incorrect statement was immediately met with scorn online from those who felt this was another example of Soviet erasure and an insult to the enormous sacrifice the U.S.S.R. made to defeat fascism in Europe.Other groups exterminated there, however, included Soviet prisoners of war – a practice only ended by the arrival of the Red Army. All but 92 of the estimated 15,000 Soviets who entered the camp were exterminated. As with their comrades who liberated it, their memory is politically inconvenient for the powerful.

العيسى و”الهولوكوست”.. هكذا يصبح التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” فريضة!

 23 كانون الثاني 19:56

العيسى رفض التعليق على إعلان ترامب القدس عاصمة لـ”إسرائيل”، قائلاً: الرابطة ملتزمة بالسلام وليست هيئة سياسية

عباس الزين

الأمين العام لـ”رابطة العالم الإسلامي” محمد العيسى، هو الشخصية التي يسعى من خلالها ولي العهد محمد بن سلمان، إلى جعل التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” أمراً واقعاً عبر استخدام الذرائع الدينية للعلاقة مع اليهود، وجاءت زيارته إلى معسكر “أوشفيتس” في بولندا ضمن مسارٍ واضح الهدف، بدأ منذ استلامه منصبه.

محمد العيسى، من جديد… منذ سطوع نجمه في السنوات الأخيرة، بالتوازي مع وصول محمد بن سلمان إلى السلطة، كان واضحاً المسار الذي خطّه أمين عام “رابطة العالم الإسلامي”. إبرازه وإعطاؤه هذا الزخم الإعلامي لا يمكن فصله عن المسار السياسي الذي اتبعه بن سلمان، والهدف؟ تهيئة الأرضية للوصول إلى مرحلة “التطبيع” الكامل مع “إسرائيل”.

العيسى الذي كان وزيراً للعدل في الحكومة السعودية عام 2007، يشغل منصب عضو هيئة كبار العلماء منذ 2016، إلى جانب منصب الأمانة العامة لرابطة العالم الإسلامي التي تتخذ من مكة مقراً لها، منذ عام 2017. واظب خلال السنوات الأخيرة على أمرٍ محدّد لا يمكن إلا أن يؤدي إلى فتح باب التطبيع مع “إسرائيل” من خلفية دينية، وتحت ذريعة “حوار الأديان”.

البداية “الرسمية” لهذه المهمة بدأت عام 2017، عندما زار محمد العيسى، في تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، يرافقه السفير السعودي في فرنسا محمد الإنكاري، أكبر كنيس يهودي في باريس. حينها، أعلنت الصحافة الإسرائيلية الخبر، ووصفتها بـ”الزيارة التاريخية”. وبينما واظب الإعلام الإسرائيلي على التشديد أن العيسى مقرّب من بن سلمان، فإنه ذكر أيضاً أن الزيارة التي تمت بدعوة من الحاخام الأكبر ليهود فرنسا حاييم كورسيي، وحاخام كنيس باريس الكبير موشي صباغ، “مؤشر جديد على دفء العلاقات بين إسرائيل والسعودية”، كما قالت صحيفة “جيروزاليم بوست”.

لم يكتفِ العيسى بالزيارة تلك، بل إن مراسل صحيفة “يديعوت أحرنوت” حاوره على هامش مشاركته في مؤتمر بالأكاديمية الدبلوماسية العالمية في باريس، حيث قال رداً على سؤال عمّا إذا كان “الإرهاب الذي تنفذه مجموعات ومنظمات باسم الإسلام ضد إسرائيل وأهداف يهودية، وتربطه بالصراع الفلسطيني الإسرائيلي، يقع في إطار الإرهاب الذي تعارضه بلاده لأنه يسيء للإسلام”، رد العيسى بأن “أي عمل عنف أو إرهاب يحاول تبرير نفسه بواسطة الدين الإسلامي مرفوض”. 

وتابع: “الإسلام غير مرتبط بالسياسة، وهو ديانة سمحة وتفاهم ومحبة واحترام الآخر”.

ونشرت الرابطة على حسابها في ـ”تويتر”، بتاريخ 17 تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2017، صورة لأمينها العام وهو يرعى ندوة بعنوان “حسن الجوار والعيش المشترك” في مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، بمشاركة الحاخام الصهيوني إلي حيون، وهو حاخام مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، وعضو في جمعية “الحوار اليهودي-الإسلامي”.رابطة العالم الإسلامي@MWLOrg

معالي الأمين العام يرعى ندوة: “حسن الجوار والعيش المشترك” في مدينة ميلوز الفرنسية، بمشاركة عمدة المدينة، وكبير الرهبان الحاخام إلي حيون، ورئيسة جمعية المحبة الإسلامية المسيحية بيانرس فاسر، وممثل الكنائس فانسون ماري.

عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر

١٤٧المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر١٠١ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

بعدها بأيام، وفي تصريحات خاصة أدلى بها العيسى، عقب محاضرة ألقاها في  باريس، قال الأخير ” إن “أي عمل عنف أو إرهاب يحاول التستر وراء دين الإسلام لا مبرّر له على الإطلاق، ولا حتى داخل إسرائيل”، وفق ما ذكرته صحيفة “معاريف” الإسرائيلية، التي اعتبرت أن العيسى ومنذ تعيينه في رئاسة “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” ينشر في العالم “صورة جديدة للإسلام السعودي”.

يذكر في هذا السياق، أن زيارة العيسى إلى باريس حينها، تزامنت مع اللقاء الشهير الذي أجراه موقع “إيلاف” الإخباري السعودي، مع رئيس أركان جيش الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، غادي آيزنكوت، الذي أعلن فيه عن “توافق تام ومصالح مشتركة بين إسرائيل والسعودية”.

وفي 26 كانون الثاني/يناير 2018 كشف روبرت ساتلوف، المدير التنفيذي لـ”معهد واشنطن لسياسات الشرق الأدنى”، عن زيارةٍ قام بها إلى السعودية في كانون الأول/ديسمبر عام 2017. ويذكر ساتولف أنه ترأس وفداً من “الرؤساء العلمانيين لمركز الأبحاث لشؤون السياسة الخارجية” الذي يديره، إلى الرياض. ومن بين كبار المسؤولين الذين التقى بهم خلال زيارته التي استغرقت ثلاثة أيام الأمين العام لـ “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” محمد العيسى.

يتحدث ساتولف عن الترابط الوثيق بين السياسة والدين في المملكة، لتكون مدخلاً لما وصفه بـ”ملاحظة مثيرة للإعجاب” أثارها العيسى. ويقول  إن العائلة المالكة تعتمد على “حماية الأماكن المقدسة في مكة والمدينة كمصادر رئيسية لشرعيتها”. 

ويتابع: “لكن في اجتماعنا أثار العيسى ملاحظة مثيرة للإعجاب. ليس فقط من خلال تأكيده على التزامه الراسخ بالتواصل الديني – وهو أمر غير عادي بالنسبة للسعودية – وتحدّثه باعتزاز عن زيارته الأخيرة إلى كنيس يهودي في باريس، إلّا أنّه رفض أن يلتقط الطُّعم عندما سُئل عن رأيه حول اعتراف الرئيس ترامب بالقدس عاصمة لإسرائيل”. 

كان ساتولف يتوقع أن يبدي العيسى قوته في الجواب، ويَعِظ حول علاقة المسلمين بالقدس ويشجب قرار الرئيس الأمريكي بالاعتراف بسيادة الدولة اليهودية في أي مكان في المدينة، لكن كل هذا لم يحصل. العيسى اكتفى بالقول: “الرابطة ملتزمة بالسلام وليست هيئة سياسية”! حيث وضع هيمنة “إسرائيل” على مدينة القدس أولى القبلتين وثالث الحرمين الشريفين بالنسبة للمسلمين، في سياق سياسي، لا علاقة لـ”رابطة العالم الإسلامي” به.

عندما عاد ساتولف إلى واشنطن راسل العيسى وشكره، وطلب منه إذا ما جاء إلى واشنطن أن يزور المتحف التذكاري لـ “المحرقة” في الولايات المتحدة، ولقاء مديرته سارة بلومفيلد. 

وهذا ما حصل فعلاً، خلافاً لتوقعات ساتولف أيضاً. إذ توجه العيسى بـ رسالة  إلى “المعهد” بذكرى “المحرقة” في 25 كانون الثاني/يناير عام 2018، تبعها في كانون الثاني/ يناير العام 2019  بمقال رأي في صحيفة “واشنطن بوست” أدان فيه “الجرائم البشعة” التي ارتكبها “النازيون”، ولما بات “تقليداً سنوياً” في ذكرى “المحرقة”، وقال  إن “المسلمين حول العالم يتحملون مسؤولية تعلم الدروس من المحرقة”.

وبعدها، توجه العيسى في أيار/ مايو من العام 2019 إلى واشنطن، وزار متحف “تخليد ذكرى المحرقة”، بناءً على دعوة “المعهد”. معهد واشنطن@mahadwash

بيان من الأمين العام لـ #رابطة_العالم_الإسلامي الدكتور #محمد_العيسى في المملكة العربية #السعودية حول ذكرى “الهولوكوست” (“المحرقة اليهودية”) – #اليهود #المسلمون http://washin.st/2BuKJOq 

عرض الصورة على تويتر

٦المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويترمشاهدة تغريدات معهد واشنطن الأخرى

واستضاف “معهد واشنطن لسياسة الشرق الأدنى” العيسى، خلال تلك الزيارة، حيث تطرّق الأخير في كلمته عن رأيه بـ”السلام مع إسرائيل” قائلاً: “متى حصل هذا الحل، سنذهب سوية لنبارك هذا السلام هناك. سيكون سلاماً شاملاً”. واحتفت صفحة “إسرائيل بالعربية” الرسمية والتابعة للخارجية الإسرائيلية، خلال تلك الفترة، بزيارةٍ أُعلن عنها لوفدٍ يهودي سيتوجه إلى السعودية بناء على دعوة من “رابطة العالم الإسلامي”، في كانون الثاني/يناير العام 2020.إسرائيل بالعربية@IsraelArabic

للمرة الأولى سيزور وفد يهودي المملكة العربية السعودية بناء على دعوة من رابطة العالم الإسلامي حسبما أعلن أمين عام الرابطة الشيخ السعودي محمد بن عبد الكريم العيسى الذي قال إن الزيارة ستقام في يناير/ كانون الثاني 2020.

فيديو مُضمّن

١٬٦٤٩المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر٢٬٨٧٣ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

وخلال زيارة العيسى عقد الأخير اجتماعاً مع جيسون غرينبلات، الذي كان حينها الممثل الخاص للمفاوضات الدولية للبيت الأبيض، والمعني الرئيسي إلى جانب غاريد كوشنير بتنفيذ “صفقة القرن”، حيث ثمّن غرينبلانت خلال اللقاء موقف “رابطة العالم الإسلامي” من إدانة  “الهولوكوست”. 

وتواصلت خطوات “التطبيع” برعاية العيسى تحت ذريعة  الحوار بين الأديان،  وفي أيلول/ سبتمبر العام 2019، استقبل ولي العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان، وفداً من الرموز الإنجيلية الداعمة “لإسرائيل” يرأسه الكاتب الإسرائيلي جويل روزنبرغ، في ثاني زيارة يقوم بها إلى السعودية. روزنبرغ قال، إنه بحث مع إبن سلمان “قضايا الإرهاب والسلام والحرية الدينية وحقوق الإنسان”.Saudi Embassy@SaudiEmbassyUSA

HRH Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman welcomed @JoelCRosenberg, and his accompanying delegation of Evangelical Christian leaders to Jeddah #SaudiArabia. https://www.saudiembassy.net/news/crown-prince-receives-delegation-evangelical-leaders …

عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر
عرض الصورة على تويتر

١٦٣المعلومات والخصوصية لإعلانات تويتر١٠٢ من الأشخاص يتحدثون عن ذلك

على هذا النحو، تبدو الزيارة التي قام بها العيسى، خلال الأيام المقبلة، إلى معسكر “أوشفيتس” في بولندا كجزء من إحياء ذكرى “الهولوكوست”، غير مفاجئة وفي سياقها الطبيعي والواضح، ولا تشكّل صدمة من جهة كونها تطبيع مع منظمات وجمعيات صهيونية، تأخذ من “الهولوكوست” غطاءً لها، وذلك استناداً إلى مسارٍ طويل بدأه العيسى منذ استلامه المنصب. مسار إذا ما استمر على وتيرته فإن نهايته ستكون زيارة “كنيس” في مدينة القدس المحتلة، تحت الذريعة ذاتها، “حوار الأديان”.

وفيما لا تزال السعودية توارب، حول طبيعة تلك الممارسات وخلفياتها، وأهدافها الحقيقية، فإن الطرف الإسرائيلي يُظهِر الأمور بشكلٍ أوضح، بدءاً من احتفاء الإعلام الإسرائيلي بخطوات العيسى بشكلٍ مستمر ووضعها في إطار “تطبيع العلاقات السياسية” بذرائع دينية، عبر إعلاء شأن العيسى أحياناً كما فعلت “القناة 12” التي وصفته بـ”رجل الدين المسلم الكبير”، خلال حديثها عن زيارته، وصولاً إلى التعليقات الرسمية التي تصدر عن المستوى السياسي في تل أبيب والتي كان آخرها تصريح  زعيم حزب “أزرق أبيض” الإسرائيلي بيني غانتس، الذي اعتبر زيارة وفد سعودي لمعكسر “أوشفيتس”، إشارة إلى عملية “تغيير مهمة في الشرق الأوسط، وفرصة كبيرة لإسرائيل”.

لا يهم ما تقوله السعودية، وكيف تظهر هذا الأمر، وما تقدمه من ذرائع حول “حوار الأديان” الذي توجّه وبشكلٍ مريب خلال السنوات الماضية باتجاه اليهود حصراً، بقدر ما يهم كيف تنظر “إسرائيل” لهذا الأمر، باعتباره باباً من أبواب تطبيع العلاقات معها، عدا عن رفع الغطاء الديني عن حركات المقاومةـ ضدها، الأمر الذي ظهر في تصريحات العيسى المتكررة بما يخص “العنف داخل إسرائيل”.

لذا، فإن العيسى وبتوجيهٍ من إبن سلمان كما هو حال جميع الإجراءات المشابهة داخل المملكة وخارجها، لم يسعَ فقط إلى إباحة العلاقة مع “إسرائيل” تحت مزاعم دينية و”حسن الجوار”، بل الأهم وفق المفهوم السعودي للدين، هو تحريم المقاومة بعد تجريمها.

واللافت أن خطوات العيسى بهذا الاتجاه، جاءت في الوقت الذي باتت فيه معظم حركات المقاومة ضد “إسرائيل” في العالمين العربي والإسلامي على “لائحة الإرهاب” السعودية. وهذا يوضح المسارين السياسي والديني اللذين تربطهما السعودية بعضهما ببعض تنفيذاً لأجندتها الخاصة.

فيديوات متعلقة

لمتحف إسرائيلي…. رجل أعمال لبناني الأصل يتبرع بمقتنيات هتلر!

رجل أعمال لبناني الأصل يتبرع بمقتنيات هتلر لمتحف إسرائيلي

 الرئيس الإسرائيلي رؤوبين رفلين، يستقبل رجل الأعمال السويسري من أصل لبناني عبد الله شاتيلا، الذي اشترى مقتنيات الزعيم النازي أدولف هتلر، وتبرع بها لمؤسسة “ياد فشيم” لتخليد ذكرى “ضحايا المحرقة”.

تحدث موقع صحيفة “معاريف” عن استقبال الرئيس الإسرائيلي رؤوبين رفلين، اليوم الأحد، رجل الأعمال السويسري من أصل لبناني عبد الله شاتيلا، الذي اشترى مقتنيات الزعيم النازي أدولف هتلر، قبل أسبوعين، ومن ثم تبرّع بها لمؤسسة “ياد فشيم” لتخليد ذكرى “ضحايا المحرقة”.

وقدّم الرئيس رفلين، الشكر لشاتيلا، وقال إن مساهمته “تعتبر مساهمة عظيمة للغاية خصوصاً أنها تأتي في وقت يحاول فيه أشخاص إنكار الحقائق التاريخية”. مشيراً إلى أن “منح هذه المقتنيات لمؤسسة ياد فاشيم، سيساعد على نقل تراث الكارثة التي لحقت بأبناء الشعب اليهودي إلى الجيل الجديد”.

 وأضاف الرئيس الإسرائيلي أن “عبد الله شاتيلا بعث رسالة واضحة للعالم أجمع، تبين كيف يجب أن نكافح عمليات الكراهية والتحريض ضد الآخرين، إنه عمل إنساني حقيقي”.

وإذّ أعرب شاتيلا عن شعوره بانفعال بالغ لزيارة “إسرائيل”، قال إنه “جدّ مسرور لذلك، وإنه لشرف عظيم بالنسبة له أن يتواجد في القدس”، مؤكداً أن هذه “الخطوة تبعث برسالة كبيرة للعالم، مفادها أن محرقة كهذه لن تتكرر ثانية”.

المصدر : وسائل إعلام إسرائيلية

British Historian Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began

davies art.jpg

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

In my book  The Wandering Who, I delved into the fascinating and well accepted notion that historical thinking is foreign to Judaic thought. It is a recognised  historical fact that Jews didn’t produce any historical texts for almost 2 millennia or more precisely, in between Flavius Josephus (37 CE – circa 100 CE) and Heinrich Graetz (1817[1] –1891). Within the context of Judaic Rabbinical discourse, the religious text effectively replaces historical and temporal thinking. The present and the future are realised and interpreted in the light of the Biblical canonical narratives.  Hitler, Stalin and Corbyn for instance, are reduced into ‘Amalek figures.’ Those western leaders who serve Jewish interests fit nicely with the Judaic notion of the “Sabbos Goy.” From a Judaic perspective, Jewish suffering is regarded as inherent in Jewish destiny and experience, it is implied by the Biblical narrative and it is, to a certain extent, accepted.   

In 19th century Europe, following the rapid process of Jewish emancipation that resulted in vast secularisation and the decline of the hegemony of the Rabbinical authorities, assimilated Jews felt a growing need to understand their past, present and future within a historical context. As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand argues, this process involved, inter alia, a lot of imagination: the Jews invented large parts of their past.  This creative tendency was not practiced by Zionists alone, it is actually a crucial part of every Jewish Identitarian narrative. The Zionists invented the notion of a ‘historical right’ to other people’s land, and their so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist foes have been at least as duplicitous. When they preach to us in the name of ‘Jewish universal ethics,’ they are just fibbing, albeit in an institutional manner, as there is no such a thing as ‘Jewish universal ethics.’ Judaism replaces ethics (a mode employing cognitive judgment)  with Mitzvoth (a legalistic apparatus that replaces judgment with obedience to rules). Judaism also replaces universalism with racially oriented tribalism that is largely chauvinist if not supremacist.  

it is crucial to add that inventing one’s past is not solely a Jewish domain. An element of creativity is present for most people and probably all nationalists when they construct a narrative of their pasts. In his book Heidegger and “the Jews,”  French Philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard points out that – history may claim to tell us what really happened but what it does in practice, most of the time, is the opposite. History conceals our collective shame in an aggressive, and institutional manner.

Americans have been hard at work concealing their genocides by peppering their cities with Holocaust museums. The Brits are no different, they have made their Imperial Wars Museum into a holocaust monument. For obvious reasons neither the Americans nor the British Holocaust shrines chronicle the embarrassing fact that both Britain and America closed their gates to Jewish refugees at the time of the Holocaust. History  serves to conceal our shame rather than address it.

But Jewish history goes beyond mere concealment of Jewish shame. Jewish history is a unique intellectual domain that seeks the participation of everyone else in the concealment of Jewish shame. Not only do Jews build their historical narrative in a fashion that prevents Jews or anyone else from the crucial study of what it is that makes the Jewish past into a chain car accident saturated with colossal tragedies, pogroms, expulsions and shoahs, ‘Jewish history’ is a ‘system of thought’ that recruits others to participate and sustain the Jewish concealment apparatus.

The following article is an English translation of a Polish piece that appeared on BritishPoles.Uk a few days ago. It describes how Israeli History Professor Yehuda Bauer “taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust.” as recounted by British Polish Oxford History Prof. Norman Davies in his recent autobiography. 

As far back as 1974, Bauer, according to Davies, instructed British historians to refer to the Poles as merely “observers” rejecting all references to Polish suffering and ignoring the fact that Poland is the country that suffered most during World War II, losing over 17% of its population. The Israeli ‘historian’ referred to the Poles as “bystanders” despite the  fact that Poles make up more than a quarter and more than any other country of the 26.793 Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem.  More than 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as  punishment for saving Jews.

Assuming that Prof Davies’ account is true and I have every good reason to believe it is, then what motivated Prof. Bauer to depict the Holocaust and the Poles in such a misleading light? Presumably, truth seeking wasn’t his prime motivation. Even more telling, if Prof. Davies account is accurate,  then it is reasonable to assume that the Israeli historian wasn’t at all interested in uncovering the truth, instead he was investing in the concealment of truth and seeking support for his project from the British historians.

Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power. Similarly, Jewish history, can be seen as the attempt to conceal the fact that Jews actually have a history. Everything that is happening to Jews now, has happened too many times before and will keep repeating itself as long as we are too shy to unveil that which Prof. Bauer attempts (presumably) to conceal. 

Norman Davies reveals how the anti-Polish narrative of the Holocaust began:

Source: https://www.britishpoles.uk/

Poland In@Polandin_com

Norman describes how professor Yehuda taught british historians how to speak about – presenting people as who were not suffering during https://polandin.com/44733436/british-historian-unveils-how-antipolish-holocaust-narrative-was-initiated 

Embedded video

152 people are talking about this
Norman Davies described in his autobiography how an Israeli historian instructed British scholars to classify Poles as “observers” during the Holocaust.

80-year-old historian Norman Davies described in his recently published 800-page autobiography the way Professor Yehuda Bauer taught young British historians how to describe the Holocaust. In 1974, Prof. Bauer met with over 30 historians at the Israeli embassy in London and instructed them to use the “perpetrators-victims-observers” divisions to describe those involved in the Holocaust.  The term ‘observers’ was reserved for Poles. All references to the fact that Polish citizens were also victims during World War II were rejected.

“It was a closed meeting for professional historians. Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli historian, was the main speaker. They were to be workshops on teaching about the Holocaust, and the beginning of a large campaign promoting knowledge about the Holocaust in the world.The diagram prof. Bauer presented was clear: former perpetrators – Nazis (not Germans), victims – only Jews, and witnesses – Poles, “ said Professor Davies in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

 “Professor Bauer clearly outlines the historical pattern. It was based on the fact that during the war, in Poland, because it all took place in Poland, there were performers, there were victims and there were those who looked at it all passively, the so-called “Bystanders”. The performers are Nazis …”   said Davies.

The British historian emphasized that the word “Germany” was never used, only “Nazis” or “Nazis”.

Professor Davies said that Poles were presented only as observers and one is not allowed to mention Polish victims and suffering: “The probable result of this meeting was to show that Poland was historically the center of anti-Semitism and describing Poles as anti-Semites was justified. I said: I’m sorry, my father-in-law, a Pole, he was in two concentration camps during the Holocaust (…) I was talking about the father-in-law who survived Dachau and Mauthausen. I was shouted down. I heard: “Sit down!” And “Polonofil!”. 

According to prof. Davies, in the ’70s and’ 80s Poland’s role in the scheme was as an “observer”, and that became the dominant narrative. “Unfortunately, this pattern was adopted in the West not only at universities, but as common knowledge and dominates the narrative of World War II, ” said Norman Davies.

The Oxford historian also described how he was refused work at Stanford University under unclear circumstances after the selection procedure was completed. After completing all formalities, a university official contacted him and said that he would not get a job.” After a few weeks, I was told that the matter concerned Jewish issues, namely my writing about Polish-Jewish relations,” said Davies.

Norman Davies, born in 1939 in Bolton, is the author of several books on the history of Europe and Poland, the most famous of which is “God’s Games”, first published in 1981.

From the editor:

Poland is the country that, in proportion to its population, suffered most during World War II.  We lost over 17% of our citizens – about 6 million, including up to three million Polish Jews murdered by Germans. Poland is still demanding compensation from Germany for these terrible losses.

Poles constitute the largest national group among the Righteous Among the Nations recognized by Yad Vashem. So far 26,793 people have been commemorated. Over 25% of them were Polish. You can read more on the official Yad Vashem website. We must remember that during the German occupation of Poland many Poles risked their lives – and their families – saving Jews from Germany. To date, 6992 Poles, mostly Christians, have been honored by the State of Israel with the title of ‘Righteous Among the Nations.’ This is more than from any other nation (only 616 in Germany). The entire list is available here.Given the harsh punishment that threatened the rescuers, this figure is impressive. Polish citizens lived in the most extreme conditions in all of German occupied-Europe. Occupied Poland was the only territory where the Germans enacted the law that all help for Jews would be punished by the death of the rescuer and his entire family. At least 50,000 Poles were executed by the Germans solely as a punishment for saving Jews.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

The Left is from Jerusalem

 

Left is from Jerusalem.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned yesterday that Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion (“XR”) apologised after his comments about the Holocaust sparked outrage.

I was curious to find out what it was that Hallam said that led to such indignation. German Green politician Volker Beck accused Mr Hallam on Twitter of “bringing the climate movement into disrepute.” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said the Nazi genocide was “uniquely inhumane” (can the German foreign minister provide a list of what he considers to have been  ‘humane’ genocides?). Ullstein, Hallam’s German publisher announced it had stopped publication of Hallam’s book on climate change and that it was disassociating itself from his comments.

Judging by the  scale of the histrionics I assumed that Hallam had broken every rule. He must have praised Hitler or perhaps justified or even denied the Holocaust all together.  Apparently, he said nothing at all like that. In an interview with Die Zeit, Hallam stated that the Holocaust was  “just another fuckery in human history.”  The “fact of the matter,” he said, “is, millions of people have been killed in vicious circumstances on a regular basis throughout history.”  He concluded by observing that genocides have occurred repeatedly over the past 500 years and “in fact, you might say it is like a regular event”.

At least on its face, his statements were factually correct, Hallam didn’t deny or diminish anyone’s suffering.  Quite the opposite, he expressed a universal disgust with all forms of oppression and hatred.

What was Hallam’s crime? Apparently, that he spoke both authentically and ethically, and ignored the fact that this form of discourse is extinct within contemporary ‘Left’  and progressive circles.

XR’s Annemarie Botzki tweeted: “We distance ourselves from Roger Hallam’s trivialising and relativising comments about the Holocaust.”  Hallam is being accused of ‘trivializing’ and ‘relativizing’ the holocaust simply by noting the clear and undeniable fact that history has witnessed more than one systematic destruction of one people by another.

The study of history benefits from a  comparative approach. Our scholarly understanding of the past expands when we can see, for instance, the equivalence between the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the 1948 Palestinian Nakba. Our understanding of Zionism grows when we delve into the parallels between the national socialist aspirations of the early Labour Zionists and  those of German National Socialism that surfaced later. Yet, within the domain of the Holocaust religion such a scholarly comparative approach is regarded as the ultimate heresy. To examine the Holodomor, the Boer War, Stalin’s crimes, Neocon global atrocities, or Israeli War Crimes alongside the Holocaust is perceived by some as the ultimate profanity as it ‘relativises’ that which ‘must’ extend beyond history and reason, namely ‘The Holocaust.’

For Jewish institutions, Holocaust:  ‘Relativisation,’ ‘Trivialization’ and ‘Universalization’ are the ‘ultimate crimes’ as they tend to prevent the crystallization of the Holocaust as a unique chapter in human history. The attempt is made by these institutions to prevent  the application of language that is ‘specific to the holocaust’ to events that are unrelated to it or to Jewish suffering in general.

We are stumbling upon two core elements at the heart of the Holocaust religion.  One is, of course, the primacy of Jewish suffering. The other is the Orwellian attempt to dominate language, terminology, vocabulary and expressions by restricting the usage of certain words so the words themselves serve Jewish identitarian causes.

The great Israeli thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz noticed as early as the 1970s that the Holocaust was morphing from an event in history into a dogmatic religion. It was he who coined the notion “Holocaust religion.” Leibowitz perceived that, although Jews believe in many different things, Judaism, Bolshevism, Human Rights, Zionism and Anti Zionism: all Jews believe in the Holocaust.  A decade later in 1987, Israeli philosopher Adi Ophir expanded on this shift in Jewish consciousness and identification. In his paper On Sanctifying the Holocaust: An Anti-Theological Treatise, Ophir admitted that “a religious consciousness built around the Holocaust may become the central aspect of a new religion.”

Ophir listed the four commandments of the new religion:

 1. “Thou shalt have no other holocaust.” 

2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or likeness.”

3. “Thou shalt not take the name in vain.” 

4. “Remember the day of the Holocaust to keep it holy, in memory of the destruction of the Jews of Europe.” 

Ophir’s commandments illuminate these two Judeo Centric core elements of the Holocaust religion. The primacy of Jewish Suffering (1, 2 and 4) and strict lingual restrictions (1,2 &3).

Orwell’s insights into left authoritarianism that made 1984 into a prophetic masterpiece together with Ophir’s thoughts  provide us with the intellectual framework to understand both the Jewish and the Left’s attitude toward the Holocaust. The Left that, at least in the past, attempted to unite us in the name of a universal ethos is now at the forefront of the battle against each of its own core values: the ethical, the universal (equality) and, most important, freedom.

Noticeably, not a single Left politician or thinker stood up for Hallam and his expression of a genuine humanist and universalist outlook. This is tragic but not surprising. It can easily be explained by the concepts of ‘Athens’ and ‘Jerusalem.’  If Athens is the birthplace of philosophy and Jerusalem is the home for Torah and Mitzvoth, then Athens teaches us how to think while Jerusalem produces a set of directives as, for example,  what ‘not to say.’ The Left’s call that was born of an Athenian instinct that was both dialectical and universal has generally been reduced into a Jerusalemite set of ‘commandments’ that are totally removed from truthfulness, authenticity or human nature.

It is this Jerusalemite authoritarian mode that is quintessential to contemporary Left politics and explains why Corbyn’s Labour has expelled its best members for truthful speech. Why is it that Corbyn himself never stood for Ken Livingstone and others who were telling the truth? This systematic failure of Left politics may explain why the promised revolution never materialized.   It also explains why Hallam was stabbed in the back by his allies for telling the truth.

Truth is from Athens but the Left is from Jerusalem.

Palestine In Pictures – April 2018

Blood is seen on the clothes of Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar, who treats injured Palestinian protesters during Great March of Return protests, east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on 1 April. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Thirty-three Palestinians were fatally injured by Israeli occupation forces and armed civilians during the month of April. Four others died of injuries sustained the previous month.

All but three of them were killed in Gaza as Israel continued its lethal crackdown on the Great March of Return protests. Fifty-one Palestinians in Gaza have been killed since the outset of the protests on 30 March.

No Israelis were killed by Palestinians during the month of April, and no Israeli injuries have been reported as a result of the Great March of Return protests.

More than 6,400 Palestinians, including at least 530 children, have been injured during the protests, according to Gaza’s health ministry. Nearly 2,000 people have been wounded by live ammunition. Many of those injured will have disabilities for life.

“Over the course of four Fridays of demonstrations, far more Palestinians have been injured in the Gaza Strip than in the preceding three years combined,” United Nations humanitarian coordinator Jamie McGoldrick stated.

Five children and two journalists were among those killed by Israeli forces in Gaza’s eastern perimeter during April.

West Bank slayings

Israeli civilians and soldiers killed three Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in April.

Iyad Zabarka, 30, from Qalansawa, a Palestinian town in Israel, was shot dead by a soldier on 3 April after he crashed the car he was driving into a bus stop near the Ariel settlement. The soldier fired on Zabarka when he attempted to flee the scene by foot.

Zabarka was reportedly driving a stolen car and was being pursued by a private security company before the crash.

Muhammad Subhi Anbar, 46, died from his injuries on 8 April after he was shot by private security guards at a military checkpoint south of Tulkarm.

Anbar was hit with three bullets fired by the guards, who claimed that Anbar ran towards them in a suspicious manner. No weapon was found on Anbar and no Israeli was reported hurt during the incident.

Muhammad Abd al-Karim Marshoud, 30, was fatally wounded by an Israeli man after allegedly using a screwdriver to try to stab a second Israeli, who was unhurt, at the Mishor Adumim industrial park in an occupied West Bank settlement east of Jerusalem on 8 April.

It was reported during the month that residents of the Palestinian Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran reached an agreement with the Israeli government to relocate to the town of Hura in the southern Naqab region.

A town leader said that the Israeli government’s Bedouin resettlement authority forced residents to sign the agreement in the early dawn hours as police and demolition teams arrived to Umm al-Hiran. Israel plans to build a Jewish-only town in Umm al-Hiran’s place.

Among the structures demolished or seized by Israeli forces in the West Bank during the month were classrooms at a primary school serving 24 students in the herding community of Khirbet Zanuta in southern Hebron and a car wash and public playground for children near the Qalandiya checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem.

Israel also punitively demolished a home in the West Bank city of Jenin, displacing seven persons, including two children, on 23 April. The home belonged to the family of a Palestinian imprisoned for his involvement in the killing of a settler in January 2018. Two homes have been demolished or sealed on punitive grounds since the beginning of the year, according to the United Nations monitoring group OCHA.

Rafah crossing opened

Rafah crossing, the sole point of exit and entry for the vast majority of Gaza’s two million residents, was opened by Egypt on 12 to 14 April and for another three days on 28 April.

Rafah crossing has been opened fewer than 20 days so far this year.

Palestinians in Gaza endured rolling power cuts of up to 20 hours per day after the sole power plant in the territory shut down on 12 April due to lack of fuel.

More than 40 Palestinians were reported killed in April as a result of the ongoing war in Syria.

More than a dozen of those killed were civilians who died as the Syrian government and allied forces launched an offensive to purge armed insurgents from Yarmouk refugee camp.

Around 20 Palestinian pro-government fighters were killed during battle in April, most of them in southern Damascus.

Palestinian protesters use a mirror to divert the attention of Israeli soldiers during Great March of Return protests east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on 2 April.Yasser QudihAPA images

Jewish settlers look at garments displayed by a Palestinian vendor in the West Bank city of Hebron on 3 April. Wisam HashlamounAPA images

Palestinian protesters take part in a tent city protest demanding the right to return to their homeland, east of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on 4 April. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Israeli soldiers remove a Palestinian flag from the Gaza boundary fence as Palestinian protesters gather on the other side, east of Gaza City, on 6 April. Oren ZivActiveStills

A Palestinian woman uses a slingshot to hurl stones towards Israeli occupation forces at the Israel-Gaza boundary east of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on 6 April. Yasser QudihAPA images

A medic treats wounded journalist Yaser Murtaja, shot by an Israeli sniper while covering Great March of Return protests east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on 6 April. Murtaja died of his injuries hours later. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Palestinian medics hold a protest outside the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank city of Bethlehem demanding an end to Israeli attacks on paramedics and journalists in Gaza, 8 April.Wisam HashlamounAPA images

A Palestine sunbird is seen on a tree in the West Bank city of Nablus on 9 April.Shadi Jarar’ahAPA images

Palestinians gather at a Great March of Return site east of Gaza City after Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh spoke during a rally demanding Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homeland on 9 April.Ashraf AmraAPA images

Palestinians hold a symbolic birthday party for Hussein Madi, shot in the heart and killed by an Israeli sniper three days earlier, east of Gaza City on 9 April — what would have been his 14th birthday.Ashraf AmraAPA images

Palestinian pupils attend class in a tent at the site where their school, demolished by Israeli occupation forces, once stood in the West Bank city of Hebron, 10 April.Wisam HashlamounAPA images

Palestinians hold posters depicting Sami al-Janazra, a Palestinian prisoner on hunger strike in Israeli jail, during a solidarity protest in the West Bank city of Hebron on 10 April.Wisam HashlamounAPA images

A Hamas security officer inspects a site hit by Israeli tank fire on the outskirts of Gaza City, near the boundary with Israel, on 11 April. Israeli tanks targeted sites in eastern Gaza City in what the Israeli army and media reported was a response to an explosive device that was detonated near an Israeli military bulldozer along the boundary with Israel. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Palestinian groom Ramadan Abu Sukkar celebrates during his wedding at the Great March of Return tents east of Gaza City on 11 April. Ashraf AmraAPA images

Israeli soldiers are seen from the Nahal Oz kibbutz as Palestinian protesters burn tires in Gaza’s eastern boundary on 13 April. Oren ZivActiveStills

Relatives of Palestinians jailed by Israel call for their loved ones’ release on the occasion of Palestinian Prisoners Day, West Bank city of Nablus, on 17 April. Shadi Jarar’ahAPA images

A Palestinian man stands next a wall vandalized with Jewish supremacist slogans by suspected Israeli settlers in the West Bank city of Nablus, 17 April. Shadi Jarar’ahAPA images

Dozens of used tear gas canisters are seen next to a home during confrontations between the Israeli army and youth in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh on 21 April. Anne PaqActiveStills

A Palestinian boy flies a kite during Great March of Return protests east of Gaza City on 18 April.Yasser QudihAPA images

A counterprotester holds an Israeli flag during a demonstration in front of the QEII Centre in London, where HSBC’s annual general meeting was taking place on 20 April. Activists protested what they called the bank’s complicity with Israel. Ahmad Al-BazzActiveStills

A staff member prepares a prosthetic leg at Gaza’s Artificial Limbs and Polio Center in Gaza City on 24 April. Gaza’s health ministry announced that 17 Palestinians had limbs amputated after being injured by Israeli snipers during Great March of Return protests. Mahmoud AjourAPA images

Palestinian football player Muhammad Abu Obaid, 26, shot in both legs by Israeli occupation forces during Great March of Return protests, at his home in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip, 24 April.Mahmoud KhattabAPA images

Mourners carry the body of Palestinian scientist Fadi al-Batsh, assassinated in Malaysia on 21 April, during his funeral in the northern Gaza Strip on 26 April. Reportedly a member of the Hamas movement, al-Batsh was shot dead in a hail of bullets by motorbike-riding assailants as he walked to a Kuala Lumpur mosque for dawn prayers. Mahmoud AjourAPA images

Mourners carry the body of Palestinian journalist Ahmad Abu Hussein during his funeral in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on 26 April. Abu Hussein died a day earlier, succumbing to his injuries after he was shot in the stomach by an Israeli sniper while covering Great March of Return protests on 13 April. Mofeed Abu ZaidaAPA images

Palestinians confront Israeli occupation forces during Great March of Return protests east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on 27 April. Sanad LatefaAPA images

Yahya Sinwar, leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, takes part in a Great March of Return protest east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip on 27 April. Sanad LatefaAPA images

Israeli soldiers replace sections of the wall in Jerusalem’s Shuafat refugee camp, separating it from Pisgat Zeev settlement, on 27 April after it collapsed the day before due to heavy rainfall and floods.Oren ZivActiveStills

Palestinian leftists protest against suspended public servant salaries in front of the headquarters of the Council of Ministers, Gaza City, on 29 April. The Palestinian Authority suspended payments to 20,000 civil servants in Gaza the previous month. Mahmoud AjourAPA images

Why Do People Hate Jews? Rabbi Sidesteps Question

nazischoolclass

By Richard Edmondson

Controversy has hit a school near Leipzig, Germany where an entire 9th grade class is reportedly under investigation for openly displaying respect for Adolph Hitler and posting photos of themselves giving Nazi salutes and what-not on social media.

In mainstream media reports on the story, parents and authorities are referred to as being “horrified” over the matter, while some of the social media postings reportedly included jokes about Jews as well as praises of Hitler as a “great man.”

The school in question is called Landsberg Gymnasiums, located in the Leipzig area, and while it appears questionable as to whether all 29 members of the class were involved in the historical revisionism–which has, of course, greatly upset Jews–the investigation by German authorities is said to be, at least as of now, focusing collectively on the group as a whole.

Below is an RT report on the story which includes an interview with a Jewish rabbi from Berlin. Starting at about 2:35, the interviewer poses the following rather pertinent question to the rabbi:

Germany’s far from being the only country with a growing far right sentiment in Europe. Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?

What the interviewer is asking is a slight variation on the question, “Why do people hate Jews?” And it’s a darn good question! Unfortunately, it’s one which Jews apparently are determined not to answer. With only a few notable exceptions, which you can just about count on one hand, Jews, when faced with the question of what is causing rising hostility and anti-Semitism, relentlessly evade, duck and eschew offering any kind of lucid, cogent analysis on the subject. And so it is with this fellow:

Let’s break it down. Here again is the question that the interviewer put:

Germany’s far from being the only country with a growing far right sentiment in Europe. Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?

And here is the rabbi’s response:

Well I believe that this ideology unfortunately, which you mentioned also in other countries is, is not limited specifically to Germany at all. We find it in a number of countries across the spectrum, even many well-known countries that stand strong for democratic values. However, here in Germany it has a special meaning, there’s a special responsibility. I mean the authorities are doing what they can. That’s clear. But it has to also come onto the level of the population in education, in the very, very young stages of children when the children are still young. Already there the necessity for tolerance and respect for people of other religions and of other backgrounds has to be grounded at the very beginning of their childhood.

Now, you’ll recall that the interviewer did not ask the rabbi for any tips on child raising. What he specifically asked was: “Why do you think that this ideology seems to be proving increasingly popular?” But the rabbi completely sidestepped the question.

If we want to find out the reasons for growing anti-Jewish sentiments around the world, we might consider the following:

1. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, including its most recent assault upon Gaza, which left more than 2100 dead

2. Pro-Israel lobbies in numerous countries, lobbies which are perceived as disloyal, which corrupt national leaders, and which work to subvert popular democratic will

3. Jewish-owned media holdings and banking interests which constantly seem to agitate for wars, and who continue to prop up and support the aforementioned corrupted leaders and keep them in office

If you want an explanation for the increasing and openly-manifested hostilities toward Jews that we are now seeing, I would suggest that these are three main areas you might wish to examine and consider as possibilities, though not necessarily in the order I have presented them. And if you want to look for why such sentiments are rising to the surface in Germany specifically, you might consider also the ongoing holocaust reparations that German taxpayers have been forced to pay out, not only to individual Jews but also to the state of Israel.

Many people are perhaps under the impression that, yes, some sort of redress likely did occur between Germany and European Jews, but that whatever it was, it most likely was resolved and settled a few years after the war. Not  so. German reparations have been ongoing for the past 62 years, dating all the way back to the Luxembourg Agreement, and there seems to be almost no end in sight. According to this site, heirs to survivors may now be eligible for payments as well.

The Luxembourg agreement was signed on September 10, 1952 following lengthy negotiations between an ad hoc committee of Jews representing various Jewish organizations, including the World Jewish Congress; officials from the new state of Israel; and representatives of the West German government, including the country’s then-chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Here is an excerpt from Adenauer’s memoirs that readers might find especially interesting:

It was clear to me that, if the negotiations with the Jews failed, the negotiations at the London Debt Conference [which were going on at the same time] would also run aground, because Jewish banking circles would exert an influence upon the course of the London Debt Conference which should not be under-estimated. On the other hand it was self-evident that a failure of the London Debt Conference would bring about a failure of the negotiations with the Jews. If the German economy was to achieve a good credit standing and become strong again, the London Conference would have to be ended successfully. Only then would our economy develop in a way that would make the payments to Israel and the Jewish organizations possible.

An article published in the London Jewish Observer at the time put it more bluntly:

The whole material weight of world Jewry will be mobilized for an economic war against Germany, if Bonn’s offer of reparations remains unsatisfactory.

The Jews who participated in the Luxembourg Conference collectively came to be known as The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, or simply The Claims Conference, an organization that still exists today and which, through the years, has been touched by scandals, including one which erupted in 2009 when it was discovered that colossal amounts of money had been paid out in fraudulent claims made by alleged “survivors” of German war crimes.

“Never in the six-decade history of the organization had theft of this scale ever been discovered,” said the JTA in a report published on the scandal in 2012.

The total amount of money stolen or misappropriated was estimated at $57 million. Yet still today the Claims Conference continues to receive, and preside over the distribution of, all reparations paid out not only by Germany but by all other nations that have been forced to expend monies to Jewish survivors as well. These countries include Hungary, Austria, and also Switzerland, where banks have been forced to cough up a reported $1.24 billion in holocaust survivor claims just since the late 1990s.

To what extent the 9th graders at the German school are aware of these issues is unclear. There seems to be a concerted effort to portray the actions of the youngsters not as a revival of Nazism in Germany but as a simple youthful inclination toward exuberance and the breaking of “taboos.” This at any rate is how Lutz Feudel, the school headmaster, is spinning it.

“Breaking taboos is part of young adulthood,” he said. “I don’t believe that they wanted to actively promote neo-Nazi ideology.”

Perhaps not. But there does seem to be currently underway a fairly widespread review, reassessment, and revision as to the history of the Nazis and World War II. One of the most recent articles I have encountered to this effect is by Zen Gardner, who says that rather than the Germans declaring war on the Jews, it was the other way around. And he even pinpoints a date as to when this occurred, March 29, 1933 (which would have been just two months after Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, by German President Von Hindenberg, on January 29, 1933), while also supplying a quote from former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George that sounds remarkably, almost eerily, similar to the quote from Adenauer:

The International Bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all to one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute Monarchs. They had declared economic and financial war on Germany.

In Gardner’s view it is “undeniable that many Jews and other people suffered terribly at the hands of Nazi Germany,” yet he adds that “the legend of Auschwitz as an extermination camp for Jews is an outright fabrication.” His drawing of this conclusion, he says, is based in part on the work of British author David Irving.

While Irving has of course been extensively vilified by the mainstream media, no one, so far as I’m aware, has successfully discredited or refuted his research, although certainly Wikipedia makes a valiant effort at it here.

But regardless of your take on the Nazis and the German concentration camps, Jews have marshaled the power necessary to make questioning them illegal in a number of countries–and Irving and others have been jailed for nothing more than expressing their views on the matter. Why? For if the historical narrative found in the officially approved textbooks is true, then surely it should be able to withstand scrutiny–in which case, why would it ever be necessary to pass such laws in the first place?

And why does Israel continue its systematic displacement of the Palestinians, its theft of their lands, and its ongoing construction of illegal settlements in violation of international law? Is it possible to build a case that these things, along with the Zionist-controlled media’s one-sided coverage of them, are arousing more and more people to anger? And what also of the pro-Israel lobbies, the Wall Street investors, the power of the Federal Reserve and the central banks in Europe–is it going out on a limb to speculate that anger is aroused here as well, or to deduce that this anger is directed, rightly or wrongly, against Jews collectively as a whole? And finally could all these factors, taken as a whole, account for the rising levels of animus toward Jews we are seeing, the so-called “growing anti-Semitism” that so many Jewish writers ominously expound upon?

Perhaps.

But one thing is certain: a great many Jews, such as the rabbi in Berlin, definitely do not want to talk about it.

Obama and Palestine’s Forgotten Past

Mugs with pictures of U.S. President Barack Obama wearing a keffiyeh, displayed in a souvenir shop in Gaza City, on 9 November 2010. (Photo: AP -Adel Hana)
 
Published Monday, April 1, 2013
 
In George Orwell’s 1984, the Party had the power to reach into the past and decide whether or not a particular event had ever happened. The Party slogan declared that “who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” President Obama’s recent visit made it abundantly clear that Israel has a stranglehold over the past, the present, and the future.

In the three days of his official visit to Israel, Obama made a series of speeches, visited the grave of Theodor Herzl, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Holocaust Museum. This carefully orchestrated tour tied together past, present, and future.

From the moment he stepped off Air Force One, President Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu drove home the message that this is “our historic homeland” and that Jerusalem is “our ancient capital.” There were frequent references to Israel’s biblical heritage, with Peres proclaiming that Obama would “see the hills and mountains where our prophets preached. Where the soul of the Jewish people was born. Where the State of Israel was created.” The skilfully crafted rhetoric effortlessly connects the ancient past to Israel’s present and its claims to sovereignty over the land and Jerusalem.

One of the key sites that Obama visited was the Shrine of the Book housing the Dead Sea Scrolls. The visit’s significance was made clear in Netahyahu’s opening remarks: “You will see the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls, the world’s oldest text of the Bible, written in Hebrew here 2,000 years ago, scrolls that bear witness to the timeless bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel.” Obama was being presented with what Netanyahu wanted him to believe are the title deeds to the land.

If the Shrine of the Book presented the title deeds, then Obama’s visit to the Holocaust Museum showed that the control of the past guarantees the future. The theme here was the threat to the survival of the Jewish people. It was used to justify US military support for Israel and its use of force. In the words of Peres: “You support us as we rebuild our ancient homeland and as we defend our land. From Holocaust to redemption.”

Obama was keen to reciprocate and reinforce the message of his hosts that Israel’s roots are set firmly in the biblical past. He talked of walking on “the historic homeland of the Jewish people,” and that “the founding of the Jewish State of Israel was a rebirth, a redemption unlike any in history.” Like Peres, his use of the word “redemption” ties past and present together. It echoes George W. Bush’s remarks at the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel that “what followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David – a homeland for the chosen people of Eretz Yisrael.” Obama reinforced the connection between past and present with the phrases “a nation of museums and patents” and “timeless holy sites and ground-breaking innovation.”

Given this was the run up to Passover, Obama used the theme of biblical exodus to link Israel’s origins and future with those of the US. This powerful story of liberation from slavery and persecution, immigration and the gift of a promised land, provides a foundation narrative for both nations. Yet the exodus story is also a tragic tale of dispossession of an indigenous population slaughtered and driven from its land.

In keeping with the failure to mention this side of the story, Obama’s fleeting visit to Ramallah and Bethlehem ignored Palestine’s past. President Abbas spoke of “a people proud of their history, heritage, culture, and symbols” continuing “the path of their ancestors, extending since the ancient times over this land – their land.” But unlike his visit to Israel, Obama did not reciprocate or reinforce this message. Strikingly, he did not mention Palestine’s past nor did he visit any major archaeological sites, such as Jericho. His brief visit to Bethlehem was designed to appeal to an American Christian audience rather than suggest that Palestine had roots in the past.

Although Obama referred to “a viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people,” the term “historic” was conspicuously absent. The Palestinians were made to appear as though they have only shallow roots set in modern soil. Three millennia of history are ignored as though they have no connection to its modern inhabitants. If Palestine has no control of the past, then it has no control of the future.

Israel’s territorial claims are underpinned by its appeal to a biblical past; powerful images that resonate with an American audience that funds the military and economic aid so vital to Israel’s control and occupation. This foundation narrative has been undermined by historians in recent years who have questioned the biblical account of events.

Yet a coherent history of Palestine stretching from the ancient past, including the biblical periods, to the present has not yet emerged to challenge the powerful images used so effectively by Peres, Netanyahu, and Obama. The cultural struggle for a history of Palestine that ties these centuries to the present is crucial in the struggle for self-determination.

Palestine is denied a present because there is no political will on behalf of Obama or successive American governments to force Israel to negotiate meaningfully; there was no mention of the 1967 borders or illegal settlements. As long as the past belongs to Israel, Palestine has no future.

Keith W. Whitelam is Emeritus Professor and former head of the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield. He is the author of Rhythms of Time: Reconnecting Palestine’s Past and The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

Want to publish a (thoughtful) response to one of our opinion pieces? Send your contribution to our Submissions editor.

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!

Holocaust: ‘Only Jews can make fun of it’!

 

The old-dam of US show-business, Joan River (Russian Jewish Joan Alexandra Molinsky), has refused to apologize for making joke about the Holocaust on her TV show “Fashion Police”, insisting that was just part of her Jewish humor to remind the public about Holocaust. I think, River was making fun of president Barack Obama who in his speech at the UN General Assembly, last year, called Holocaust as sacred as the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and Jesus (as).

River’s “antisemitic” joke involved a dress worn by German supermodel Heidi Klum during Monday’s Oscars episode of her show, saying: “The last time a German looked this hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens“. The joke made Israel lobbyist Abraham Foxman jump on his seat. He slammed Joan River with a statement, saying: “Of all people, Joan Rivers should know better. This remark is so vulgar and offensive to Jews and Holocaust survivors, and indeed to all Americans, that we cannot believe it made it to the airwaves“. So the Guru is telling us that all 300 million Americans are Jewish!

After learning that Joan River is no Hillary Clinton, Abe Foxman, wrote a letter to Suzanne Kolb, President of E! Entertainment Television, urging the network to prevail upon Ms. Rivers to issue a formal apology, and to remove the segment from future broadcast. A similar request made by Abe Foxman in the past, have resulted in River’s telling Foxman’s organization ADL to, “shut the f-ck up”.

In 2011, French Jewish historian, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, issued an open letter to Hollywood’s top Jewish producer, Steven Spielberg, saying: “No Sir, you will not find ONE witness who saw 6 millions Jews slaughtered. You will not find ONE witness of Zyclon- B- gas chambers to exterminate 1000 or 2000 people at a time, close to the crematoria. See my ‘Shoa Sherlockholmised’ herewith: it is the summary of 20 years study on the subject. The ‘6-million-gas-chambers myth ‘is an arithmetic and technical nonsense“.

German comedian Oliver Polak is not ashamed to tell his audience on stage that he doesn’t believe in Zionist narrative of the Holocaust; ‘Six Million Died’. Polaks, known as ”the only German Jew comedian“ has been criticized by Israel lobby groups for making fun of the new Jewish religion. Polak response has always been: “I’m allowed to do that. I’m a Jew“. Sometime, Polak even has made fun of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, whose leaders have slammed Polak’s Gentile audience more than the comedian for laughing at his anti-Holocaust jokes instead of showing their guilt for what their Nazi ancestors had done to the European Jews.

Recently, Israeli TV program “Eretz Nehederet” aka “A Wonderful Country” portrayed a group of Israeli high-school students on a visit to a Nazi ‘death camp’ in Poland. They made funny remarks about the Holocaust narrative. The skit amused many but also offended some who asked: “How dare a humor and satire program poke fun at the Holocaust and its symbols?

Dr. Hajo Meyer, an Auschwitz camp survivor, in 2010, claimed that Israeli Jews are carrying out Palestinian Holocaust. Dr. Norman Finkelstein quoted his mother making a similar statement in his book, ‘The Holocaust Industry’.

American Jewish writer and blogger, Roger Tucker, refuses to accept the “six million” numbers and the existence of gas chambers. He says the myth was created by Zionists for the survival of Israel. “The subject is important because there would be no Israel if it weren’t for the general acceptance of the official holocaust narrative. If historians are able to cast sufficient doubt on these elements of this story then whatever justification there has been for the existence of this bizarre “state” will disappear – and good riddance,” wrote Tucker.

Let us not forget British Jewish writer and blogger, Paul Eisen, who is not ashamed to claim that he doesn’t believe in Holocaust.
 

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!

ADL: ‘Gun control did not cause the Holocaust’

On January 25, 2013, the top gun at US-Israel advocacy group, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Abraham Foxman, warned the pro-gun lobby groups to keep Nazi anologies out of the gun control debate. “Gun control did not cause the Holocaust,” he said. “Nazism and antisemitism did“.

As usual, Abe’s latest outburst confused most of us. Bryan Mark Rigg Ph.D in his book, ‘Hitler’s Jewish soldiers’, has claimed that nearly 150,000 German Jews were part of Nazi Army.

Furthermore, Rabbi Wolf Gunther Plaut, in his 1990 book, ‘The Man Who Would Be Messiah’ had claimed that Frankist Jews committed Holocaust. French Jewish historian, Dr. Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce, has refused to believe in the six million narrative. As far antisemitism is concerned, a recent study by the British journal Genome Biology and Evolution claims that the vast majority of European Jews (Ashkenazi) are not Semites.

Now, coming to Abe Foxman’s so-called “anology” – which refers to 1938 German Weapon Act passed by the Nazi regime. The law restricted gun ownership to those whose loyalties to Hitler were not in question. However, when American and British Jewish group initiated economic boycott of Germany similar to the one they’re waging against Iran for the last decade – the Weapon Act mostly effected civilian Jews. Even after the Jewish boycott of German goods, the Zionist Jewish groups and SS shared the same bed. The terrorist groups belonging to the Zionist Federation of Germany were not only allowed to buy arms but Jewish militias such as Lehi and Irgun to operate training camps. These two terrorist groups were eventually merged into Israel Occupation Force (IOF) in 1949.
Almost every piece of gun legislation in America has been introduced or sponsored by Jewish lawmakers (Emanuel Cellar, Howard Metzenbaum, Herbert Kohl, Howard Metzenbaum, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Herbert Kohl, etc.). However, last week ADL blasted the anti-immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now (IRON) for saying so. In a January 11 newsletter, IRON asked the readers not to let Jews “succeed shredding America’s Constitution”.

So, why most Jews support gun control? The best answer I have come across, is from the welknown Israel-Firster, Elliott Abrams. He acknowledged in his book ‘Faith or Fear: How Jews can survive in Christian America’ – that the mainstream Jewish community in America clings to what is at bottom – a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with antisemitism and always on the verge of antisemtic outbursts. Abrams also admits that due this dark vision, Jews have taken the lead to secularize United States. Jewish groups have played a major role in anti-Church campaign and subvert Christmas. Dr. Joshua Eli Plaut’s book, ‘A Kosher Christmas: ‘Tis the Season to be Jewish’ is worth reading to know the truth.

Demilitarization of public has always been a principle of western colonization. That’s the main reason the Founding Fathers, who were products of British colonialism, wanted Americans to be armed to keep the government’s centralized power in check. Even the so-called ”non-violence” preacher, Mahatma Gandhi, was aware of this bitter reality. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest,” said Gandhi.

Personally, I’m against commercialization of fire-arms. It’s okey to have a rifle for game hunting or for self-protection at a remote farm. However, looking at the historic failure of prohibition and partial ban on smoking – the gun control is doomed to failure. Furthermore, with the rise of religious bigotry among the pro-Israel lobby groups in the West – Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who was influenced by anti-Islam literature authored by American Zionist Christian Robert Spencer and Zionist Jew Pamela Geller – has proved that strict gun-control laws will not keep assault rifles out of the hands of pro-Israel maniacs bent on murdering dozens of children.
 

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!

Thank God For Holocaust Memorial Day

Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 12:19PM
By Gilad Atzmon

So the Goyim can learn first hand about the vile impact of Jewish Power.

So the Goyim grasp once and for all that their democratically elected politicians better keep their thoughts to themselves.

So the Goyim accept once and for all the primacy of Jewish suffering.

So the Goyim can turn a blind eye to all those Shoa inflicted by the Jewish State, Stalin’s Jews and Ziocons.

So we remember never to forget to ask the most crucial and appropriate questions:

1. why is Jewish history an endless chain of Holocausts?

2. Can the Jews liberate themselves and the rest of us of their past?

3. Can we transform the Holocaust into a universal message against racism, oppression and discrimination?

4. Can the Jewish State follow such a universal message? Can the so-called Jewish â€کanti’ Zionist follow such a universal message?

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, the lobby, the power and Jewish ‘progressive’ spin in particular

 
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!

Counter Ouch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/01/the-case-of-gilad-atzmon/

Today Counterpunch and Redressonline published this incredible analysis by Blake Alcott.
It proves beyond doubt that Ali Abunimah & Co. never read my work or understood any of my ideas.

I guess that some of our Palestinian activists may have to self-reflect. Those who believe in one democratic state would be well advised to engage debate and endorse the notions of tolerance, pluralism and integrity.

Let us all leave Talmudic Herem to Israel and its sayanim.

To Shun or Bury the Hatchet?

The Case of Gilad Atzmon

by BLAKE ALCOTT

Panel at Cooper Union NYC led by Anne-Marie Slaughter, 28 September 2006:
Tony Judt: I just… I’d just like to say one very quick thing about [the difficulty of getting anything critical of Israel into the mainstream media]. When I submitted an article about the Israeli Lobby debate — that Mearsheimer and Walt kicked off — to a very well known American, North American, newspaper [NY Times], I was asked by the editorial directors would I mind telling them whether I’m Jewish or not. They felt it was something they would like to know before they published it.
Martin Indyk: But they published it.
TJ: I told them I was Jewish. (Audience laughs.)

This review of Gilad Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics and the anti-Atzmon essay by Ali Abunimah and some 20 co-signatories called Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon is an effort to unite the movement for one secular, democratic state (ODS) in historic Palestine of which both Atzmon and Abunimah are adherents. Edward Said wrote,

The absence of a collective end to which all are committed has crippled Palestinian efforts not just in the official realm, but even among private associations, where personality conflicts, outright fights, and disgraceful backbiting hamper our every step.

In his last years Said put such a “collective end” into words – for coexistence between Jews and Arabs in one state – and now, at the end of a decade that has witnessed outstanding articles, books and conferences articulating this vision, a chasm opens up. If our effort is not to be crippled both sides must bury the hatchet.

Abunimah, Omar Barghouti, Rafeef Ziadah and other signatories, as well as other ODS supporters known to me who have disavowed Atzmon, have made enormous contributions to justice for Palestinians. Their accusations are worth examining, which requires examining The Wandering Who? and some of Atzmon’s blogs and videos with an eye out for the racism, ‘antisemitism’ and Holocaust denial of which Granting accuses him. I haven’t read everything, of course, and there are certainly mistakes in my judgment, so I welcome any feedback and debate.

The call for disavowal accuses Atzmon of 5 trespasses:

(1) He claims to speak for Palestinians.
(2) He denies that Zionism is settler-colonialist.
(3) He believes that to self-identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist.
(4) He denies the Holocaust.
(5) He is an ‘antisemite’, a racist.

Two general observations: First, Granting’s accusations are formulated indirectly, not ‘in so many words’; but a reading of the short document shows that these are what it boils down to. Second, Granting itself does not include any proof or evidence for the accusations; there are no examinations of Atzmon’s texts, even out of context. Neither are there explicit definitions of the terms ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ that would by rights accompany such severe accusations. For such more detailed definitions and arguments I have searched the web in vain, but of course the web is large, and if I have missed something I hope somebody tells me. I’m restricting my analysis almost entirely to Wandering on the assumption that evidence for the accusations would be there, if anywhere.

Strictly speaking there is thus no case, only claims. Atzmon is innocent till proven guilty. It is unfair, difficult and inefficient to put the burden of proof on the accused. Nevertheless, I’ve read the book carefully and ended up writing a defense of it that includes several criticisms, quoting Atzmon at length along the way. Please also see the favourable reviews by Mazin Qumsiyeh and John Mearsheimer, and a less favourable one by Elias Davidson. I ignore denunciations of Atzmon by Alan Dershowitz, Tony Greenstein and Jeffrey Goldberg because they consist of associative thinking and are based on often-unreferenced quotations out of context. Preceding Granting, in late February 2012, was a similar critique of Wandering that actually contains 12 quotations from Atzmon.

The five accusations

(1) Guiding the Palestinian struggle

Granting claims that Atzmon “for many years now… has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it.” Since I am sure the Granting signatories do not reject all ideas of all outsiders, this leaves it unclear what counts as acceptable opinion and support. It is moreover legitimate for Atzmon and other Israeli citizens to advocate visions of the future of their country – necessarily including Palestinians.

Granting’s concern becomes clearer through the further statementthat “As Palestinians, it is our collective responsibility, whether we are in Palestine or in exile, to assert our guidance of our grassroots liberation struggle.” Atzmon has in fact elsewhere agreed with this:

It is our duty (as human beings) to show our support to the Palestinian people but we are not allowed to tell them what to do. We are not allowed to tell them what is right or wrong, we can only offer ourselves as soldiers…

Ignoring the absurdity of the idea of ‘telling Palestinians what to do’, roles between the oppressed and those in solidarity with them must always be negotiated. In this case however I know that there is almost total agreement between Atzmon and the “principles” of the movement guided by the signatories: Right of Return, equality not apartheid within Israel, liberation of the West Bank and Gaza, and perhaps even a preference for one over two states.

(2) Settler-colonialism

Granting claims that “Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project…” The text of Wandering does not support this claim. Atzmon in several places explicitly affirms that Zionism is settler-colonial. (pp 9, 88, 101, 165) In apparent contradiction, he does in one place write that it “is not a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine”. (p 19) In my reading this means it is not just a run-of-the-mill colonial movement out for economic or geopolitical gain: there is no mother country unless it is world Jewry, and Zionism’s only colony is Palestine, which was chosen over Argentina and Uganda for cultural and/or religious reasons. Atzmon elsewhere objects to the “misleading” colonialism paradigm because he regards Zionism as a unique racialist project, not motivated by material exploitation for the (non-existent) homeland.

Atzmon is basically asserting that the settler-colonialist paradigm is not sufficient to explain Zionism: Zionist events like the attack on the Mavi Marmara, dropping White Phosphorus on Gaza, slicing up the Holy Land with separation walls, and indeed the original expulsion of “the vast majority of the Palestinian indigenous population just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz… have nothing to do with the colonialist nature of the Jewish state…” (pp 181-182) To be sure, the term “nothing” overstates the case, but his claim is that more than colonialism is involved. I’m inclined to agree when I read for instance Netanyahu’s December 2012 statement that “We live in a Jewish state, and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Western Wall is not occupied territory. We will build in Jerusalem because this is our right.”

(3) Jewish political identity

Granting interprets Atzmon’s complex sociological concept of Jewish-ness to mean that

Zionism…is…part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist.

Now, to say that self-identifying as a Jew entails Zionism is prima facie absurd, and I do not find the claim in Wandering. I agree with Granting that Atzmon is wrong in his blanket criticism of anti-Zionist Jewish groups. I also find Atzmon at places abstruse on this issue of the relation between world Jewry, “Jewish ideology” and Zionism.

But confusion is abated when we realise that his definition of Zionism differs from the standard, broad ‘movement for a Jewish state in Palestine’. Rather: “I suggest that it makes far more sense to regard Zionism as a tribal Jewish preservation project [aiming at] the prevention of assimilation…[] Accordingly, Zionism should be seen as an amalgam of different philosophies specialising in different forms of tribal separatism, disengagement and segregation.” (p 70) Atzmon is thus talking only about a political self-identity, so Granting misrepresents him.

Atzmon sets up three non-exclusive basic categories: “Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewish-ness (the ideology)… or identity politics, or political discourse”. (p 15) The book does not criticise Jews, the first category, does criticise a few aspects of Judaism, the second, and argues for 200 pages against the third, Jewish-ness, and against those who “put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.” (p 16)

I am confused as to whether Atzmon wants to say that politically identifying with Jewish-ness entails Zionism. In numerous places criticises or laughs at Jewish tribalism (pp 19, 32, 56, 113, 116, 164-165, 172, 181-184), writing that “to identify politically as a Jew and to wonder what is ‘good for the Jews’ is the true essence of Jewish tribal thinking...” (p 184) Zionism “united the tribe on many levels” (p 46) and “is grounded on a very specific realisation of the Jewish identity as a synthesis of racial awareness, religious awareness and nationalistic awareness”. But while Jewish-ness is an ethnically-based political ideology, Atzmon doesn’t show that non-Zionist Jewish political identities are inconceivable.

Granting’s signatories must have misread the sentence, “To be a Zionist means to accept that, more than anything else, one is primarily a Jew.” (p 19) This says that all Zionists are 3rd-category Jews, not the reverse. The context moreover is a specific discussion of sanayim, Mossad agents living abroad.

I do however fault Atzmon’s statement that “…considering the racist, expansionist Judeo-centric nature of the Jewish State, the Diaspora Jew finds himself or herself intrinsically associated with a bigoted, ethnocentric ideology and an endless list of crimes against humanity.” (p 48) What does “intrinsically” associated mean? Merely being “associated” (by others) with something bad is one thing; but when this is “intrinsic” it could mean that the bad thing is indeed “part and parcel” of being a Diaspora Jew.

(4) Holocaust denial

Atzmon throughout acknowledges the Holocaust, shoah or Judeocide, asserting however that it should be studied historically like other ethnic exterminations. (pp 43, 70, 130-131, 154, 175-176, 182, 185-186) And we need to see how the Holocaust is used in the destruction of the Palestinians – a position shared by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Adi Ophir, Norman Finkelstein and Marc Ellis. (pp 148-152, 162) I do find imprecision in his statement that the “Holocaust… [is] not an historical narrative, for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians” (p149); to be consistent with everything he writes about the Holocaust this should read “not merely an historical narrative”.
Atzmon recalls,

As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. They were part of our lives. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. Yet I must mention that I can hardly recall a single Holocaust survivor who ever attempted to manipulate me emotionally.” (pp 185-186)

Further, “It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return.” (p 186)
An earlier blog reads,

[T]he form of Holocaust denial that really bothers me is the denial of the on-going Palestinian Holocaust. This Holocaust is documented and covered daily by the western media. The turning of residential Palestinian cities into concentration camps; the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population; the withholding of medical aid from Palestinian civilians; the wall that tears the holy land into isolated cantons and Bantustans; the continuous bombardment of civilians by the IAF are known to us all. This Holocaust is committed by the Jewish state with the support of world Jewry.

This accusation by Granting is absurd.

(5) Racism and ‘antisemitism’

Atzmon writes nothing against Jews by origin, i.e. against anybody based on their genetic heritage or ‘race’; yet this would be the precondition for justifying the allegation of ‘antisemitism’/racism because ‘semitic’ refers to an ethnos or race. I trust moreover that ‘some of his best friends are Jewish’, and he vows:

I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity. Yet… there will not be a single reference to Jews as ethnicity or race… This book doesn’t deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity. If anything, my studies of the issue suggest that Jews do not form any kind of racial continuum…[] I also refrain from criticisng Judaism. Instead, I confront different interpretations of the Judaic code. I deal with Jewish Ideology, Jewish identity politics, and the Jewish political discourse. I ask what being a Jew entails. (p 15; also pp 147-148)

Again, his first two categories – religious Jews and Jews by origin – are “harmless and innocent”. (p 16) No one is calling for harm to Jews. (p 131)

Atzmon does once lambaste Judaism for tribalism because it so closely adheres to an ethnic rather than religious concept of itself (p 113) and sees a continuum between the Bible and Zionism (pp 120-122). But he says clearly,

I am against racism and in fact in my writing you won’t find a single racial reference. Moreover, when I write about Jewish identity I analyse it in ideological and philosophical terms. For me Jewishness is a mind set. Nothing to do with the quality of one’s blood or the religion of one’s mother.

He does unfortunately make several statements that refer to “Jews” where “Jewish-ness” or “Zionist” would be more accurate and consistent with the whole book. He for instance writes of “European and American Jews” who have assimilated and cast aside their “Jewish identity”, where he means their Jewish political identity or identification with the “tribe”. (pp 64-65) He rightly says that all Jewish Zionists sign up to the Jewish-ness ideology, but he should avoid any ambiguity suggesting that all Jews adhere to Jewish-ness.

Blurring occurs when he omits the qualifier ‘political’ in writing of “the Jew within”, “the Jewish understanding of the past” or occasionally of “Jewish identity”. (pp 95, 173, 135) He does however usually precisely include it, for example in writing that one “can hardly endorse a universal philosophy while being identified politically as a Jew.” (p 39; also pp 102, 138, 145, 174) Imprecision burdens as well the statement that “Jewish people… can never be like ‘other people’, for those who demand to be seen as equal must feel inherently and categorically different.” (p 52) I also miss clear definitions for the phrases “the Jewish condition” (p 184) and “the wider Jewish problem”. (p 15)

Atzmon’s use of the phrase “Jewish lobbyists” (pp 152, 171) has been challenged, clarity speaking for “Israel lobby” or “Zionist lobby”. It is however at least mitigating that most Jewish Zionist lobbyists themselves refer to themselves and their organisations as ‘Jewish’, and that Zionists themselves appropriate Jewish identities to oppress Palestinian Arabs – for instance with the Holocaust (pp 130-134) or Judaic symbols on fighter planes (p 140). As Zionist Michael Bar-Zohar puts it, “If you’re attacking Israel, this means you are attacking Jews.” But why should one language-rule be valid for pro-Israel lobbies and another for its critics? (pp 149-151)

Granting in addition accuses Atzmon of ‘”allying” himself with “conspiracy theories, far-right, orientalist, and racist arguments, associations and entities”, but offers no evidence, nor even a definition of what “allying” would look like. I urge Atzmon to make his language less ambiguous, but given that he is criticising what he sees as the dominant Jewish political culture, not Jews in general, his book in fact supports Granting’s position that “our struggle was never, and will never be, with Jews, or Judaism, no matter how much Zionism insists that our enemies are the Jews. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism.”

Anti-Jewish-ness

Benny Morris, in an interview with Jewish Chronicle and Guardian Zionist Jonathan Freedland, defends himself against Freedland’s suggestion that his critical, negative claims about Arab culture “could be seen as” racist by rejoining that he [like Atzmon] is speaking of a dominant political culture, not Arabs as a genetically defined ethnic group. Morris’s ambiguities are between statements that ‘all Arabs’ or ‘a majority of Arabs’ or ‘Arabs’ or ‘Arab culture(s)’ place relatively low value on human life, but it seems the generalising nature of sociological analysis always entails a degree of conflation between (1) the dominant norms of the group and (2) all members of the group. Nietzsche walked the same tightrope in his Kulturkritik of Christianity. But the issue is the quality of Morris’s or Atzmon’s or Nietzsche’s empirical evidence and cultural analysis – a well-known academic field – not whether any such investigation is racist. It is not, since there is no appeal to ethnic causality which is the criterion for both positive (e.g. ‘philosemitic’) and negative (e.g. ‘antisemitic’) racism.
The advertisement for Wandering claims: “Since Israel defines itself openly as the ‘Jewish State’, we should ask what the notions of ‘Judaism’, ‘Jewishness’, ‘Jewish culture’ and ‘Jewish ideology’ stand for.” The Jewish state and its behaviour is an explicandum of the first order, costing as it does Palestinian lives and livelihoods. He quotes Israel’s first president: “‘There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.’ In just a few words, Weizmann managed to categorically define the essence of Jewish-ness.” (p 16) With this concept he hopes to correct and add to our understanding of Zionism.
Atzmon told Ha’aretz:

The Israelis can put an end to the conflict in two fucking minutes. Netanyahu gets up tomorrow morning, returns to the Palestinians the lands that belong to them, their fields and houses, and that’s it. The refugees will come home and the Jews will also finally be liberated: They will be free in their country and will be able to be like all the nations, get on with their lives and even salvage the bad reputation they have brought on themselves in the past 2,000 years. But for Netanyahu and the Israelis to do that, they have to undergo de-Judaization and accept the fact that they are like all peoples and are not the chosen people. So, in my analysis this is not a political, sociopolitical or socioeconomic issue but something basic that has to do with Jewish identity.

The anti-Zionist as well as the pro-Zionist discourse cannot be separated from the Jewish discourse.
At a One Democratic State conference in Stuttgart in 2010, attended by both Atzmon and Abunimah, the latter argued that this ‘culture’ category is useless:

I think that to use language that blames a particular culture – [Atzmon] was talking about Jewish culture – is wrong [applause] because such arguments could be made about anyone. We could blame German culture for the history of Germany, we could blame British culture for the history of British imperialism, we could blame Afrikaner culture for apartheid in South Africa. And this really doesn’t explain anything at all. (emphasis added)

Atzmon counters that this is

what historians, sociologists, anthropologists, intellectuals are doing when they try to understand historical and political development. The historians and sociologists who look into the Nazi era, don’t they look into German culture, into German philosophy, into the work of Wagner, both as a writer and as a composer, into the work of Hegel, and the German spirit, into Christian antisemitism, and the impact of the Protestant church, don’t they look into a Martin Luther, and his infamous book about the Jews and their lives? Don’t they look into German Early Romanticism? We are in the 21st century. We understand very well that culture, politics, history, heritage, religions, are all bonded together.

Abunimah’s position is of course untenable, while at the same time it remains to be seen whether Atzmon’s concept of ‘Jewish-ness’ really earns its keep.

Perhaps “Jewish-ness” is not strictly necessary to refute Zionism and support ODS. However, on the principle of ‘know thine enemy’ it may assist us in fighting Zionism and negotiating with Israel – were it ever to come to the table. I moreover submit that analysing the hoary topic of ‘what it is to be a Jew’ is of much interest to many Jews who are now doubting their support of the Jewish state. It seems to me that the issue can contribute to both an intra-Jewish discussion and to the discussion of how to stop the Jewish state’s murderous ethnic cleansing. Why should it do only one or the other?

One Granting signatory, Omar Barghouti, has sought in terms similar to Atzmon’s to explain Zionist crimes against Palestinians, the “relative-humanization” of Palestinians, and how Zionists live with it. His explanatory concept is ‘Jewish fundamentalism’, relying partly on the thought of Israel Shahak to find cold-bloodedness and justification for Jewish ethnic superiority in some “tenets of Jewish Law”. The Midianite genocide and certain Torah passages provide precedents for what is happening today. Atzmon likewise relates Israeli behaviour to Biblical precedents (pp 120-122, 157-162), yet in the main looks at secular Jewish culture, whereas Barghouti is perhaps focusing only on religious Jewish culture. Or, if it is not Atzmon’s anti-Jewish-ness that Barghouti finds racist, antisemitic and Holocaust-denying, what is it?

As for the content of Jewish-ness – in the broadest terms merely “Judeo-centric political discourse” (pp 88, 55, 145, 197) – Atzmon characterises it as (1) exclusivist, (2) based on the uniqueness of Jewish suffering, (3) supremacist and (4) uncannily paralleling some Old Testament stories. (pp 121, 160, 188) He writes for instance that

assimilation has never been presented as a Jewish political call. It was rather individual Jews who welcomed and enjoyed European liberal tendencies. The Jewish political call was inspired by different means of tribal, cultural or even racially-orientated segregation. (p 32)

As evidence that it is more “tribal” than many other groups Atzmon points to a relatively high resistance to assimilation, strong halachic marriage rules (procreative isolation), and high hurdles for conversion to Judaism. (pp 19, 32, 56, 113, 116, 164-165, 172) The bridge to Zionism, in Atzmon’s view, seems to be that a combination of exile, cohesion and chosenness, together with feelings of unique suffering, led to both a strong desire for an ethnically-defined rather than secular-democratic state and a sense of righteousness (and thoroughness) in its establishment at the expense of indigenous people.

I don’t know much about either Judaism or Jewishness, but I think Atzmon’s evidence for the trait of supremacy is inadequate. (see pp 2, 101, 181-182) True, Zionist acts are racially supremacist, but the book does not give a rigorous proof that feelings of ethnic superiority inhere in the Jewish political culture. But this is a question of content; that he writes about it is certainly kosher.

We should perhaps not forget that Hess, Jabotinsky, Weizmann and all Israeli politicians have tied the state as closely as possible to Jewish history and culture. (pp 16-17, 139) The Law of Return, the Jewish National Fund, Jews-only settlements and roads, the very concept of Eretz Israel, and Israel’s Declaration of Independence are racist. Negative Kulturkritik is not.

Atzmon unexpectedly even has a good word for Jewish-ness in seeing its “complexity” and the “duality of tribalism and universalism… at the very heart of the collective secular Jewish identity…” (pp 148, 162, 56) “Secular collective Jewish identity” is made up of bothelements, “Athens” and “Jerusalem”. (pp 56, 57, 78) In conciliatory mode he ambivalently asserts that while there is no such thing as a “Jewish humanist heritage’… there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, [which however] are certainly far from being universal.” (p 113) By reference to the ethnic particularism of Jewish-ness he suggests an answer to the question “How is it that… Israel and its lobbies are so blind to any form of ethical or universal thinking?” (p 177, emphasis added)

Another writer seeking connection between “Jewish resources” and a universal, egalitarian ethics is Judith Butler, whose new book Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism promises a rewarding look at this topic which should be debated, not silenced by the charge of ‘antisemitism’ or denying the legitimacy of cultural explanations in principle.

Imagine an exam question: “Is the following statement antisemitic?:

The reopening of the tunnel [beneath al-Haram al-Sharif] seems… an act of arrogant triumphalism, a sort of rubbing of Palestinian and Muslim noses in the dirt. This had the added effect of pouring fuel on the smoldering sectarian competition that has been the city’s long-standing bane. I do not think there is any doubt that this Lukud assertion of what is unmistakably Jewish power over Muslim holy places was intended to show the world… that Judaism can do what it wants.

Atzmon speaks of “Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power” (p 145), interpreted perhaps by Granting with the somewhat vague phrase “attacking Jewish identities”. But cannot one speak of a political ideology that sees itself as Jewish using the term ‘Jewish’ with its bundle of ethnic, religious, and political meanings?

Taboos

Atzmon asks several taboo questions.

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start asking questions… We should strip the Holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. The Holocaust, like every other historical narrative, must be analysed properly… Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they geniunely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? (pp 175-176)

People who place such questions out of bounds “are doomed to think that anti-Semitism is an ‘irrational social phenomenon that ‘erupts out of nowhere’. Accordingly they must believe that the Goyim are potentially mad.” (p 182) It is a matter of simple logic that to ask why Jews were hated in Europe is not to presuppose that there were good reasons.
Another excerpt:

It took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative [for] historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and political lobbies. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’ as I was taught in Israel. She probably perished of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting… The fate of my great-grandmother was not so different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in deliberate, indiscriminate bombing, just because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese… [As devastating as it was], at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptional meta-historical status. (pp 175, 149)

The “Holocaust religion” freezes a certain narrative in law while Holocaust research follows normal historiographic rules; the claim of its uniqueness is ‘philosemitic’, and its severity is used to justify, with the logic of two wrongs’ making a right, the ethnic cleansing of people having nothing to do with the Holocaust. (pp 148-153)
Evil questions came naturally to Atzmon:

[At age 14 he] asked the emotional tour guide if she could explain the fact that so many Europeans loathed the Jews so much and in so many places at once. I was thrown out of school for a week. (p 184)
“As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionist lobbies and their plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering.” (p 176)

Ben White has similarly asked, “Is it possible to understand the rise in anti-semitism?” This requires defining both ‘antisemitic’ and ‘understand’. One poll question asked people if they “can understand very well that some people are unpleasant towards Jews”. While White is not anti-Semitic and not unpleasant towards Jews, he “can… understand why some are.” First, Israel subscribes to the racial supremacy of Jews, and Zionists “equate their colonial project with Judaism”, and although reacting to this racism and injustice with “attacks on Jews or Jewish property [is] misguided”, it can be understood politically. Second, since the Western media are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, some people believe, again “misguidedly”, the idea of a “Jewish conspiracy”. We must live with the ambiguity of the word ‘understand’.

Similarly, when Atzmon calls violence against non-combatants who are Jewish by origin “rational”, we must acknowledge the ambiguity of the term ‘rational’, which doesn’t mean ‘morally justified’. Atzmon defends his statement that burning down a synagogue can be “a rational act” by explaining that by “rational” he means that “any form of anti-Jewish activity may be seen as political retaliation. This does not make it right.” One can ask why such violence occurs, just as we can ask why the Jewish state commits and condones violence against innocent Palestinians and the destruction of olive trees and water cisterns. It can be Israeli racism, but it could also be ‘rational’ behaviour for Israel’s security. Antisemitism expert Antony Lerman, also, has noted that many acts against Jews in Europe were tied to Israel’s unjust behaviour – they were political, not irrational in the sense of arbitrary, or necessarily motivated solely by hate of Jews.

Another hot topic that might can approach solely in terms of Zionism, not Jewish-ness, is that of the economic, political and media power of Zionists who are also Jews in part motivated by allegiance to their ethnic group. Atzmon covers this briefly (169-172), his Exhibit A being the ardently pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle’s listing of the relatively large number of Jews in the UK Parliament (all hard or soft Zionists). Exhibit B is billionaire Haim Saban who says, according to a New Yorker portrait, “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel… [The Arab] terrorists give me a potch in the panim…”;he openly seeks influence in “political parties,… think tanks… and media outlets…”, has tried to buy the LA Times and NY Times to push his agenda, and “harbors a wariness of Arabs that may stem from growing up as a Jew in Egypt.”

To declare out of bounds the subject of Jewish, as opposed to merely Zionist, influence in politics, finance and media is to claim that support for Zionism by many powerful people has nothing at all to do with the fact that they are Jewish, or rather, that they politically identify as Jews. Xstrata boss Mick Davis’s charity ‘United Jewish Israel Appeal’ (‘Powering young people in the UK and Israel’, ‘Strengthening Jewish identity and the connection to Israel’), is merely pro-Israel; in spite of its name, its slogans and its activities furthering Judaisation in “the Galil” and the Negev, it has nothing to do with Jewishness, no ethno-cultural content whatsoever. The Anti-Defamation League in the US, on this view, is merely a group protecting Jews from ‘antisemitism’, only coincidentally pro-Israel. Everybody knows this is fiction, and the subject appears taboo for critics but not for supporters of Zionism.

Again, one can strip Herzl’s movement for a Judenstaat to its settler-colonialist bones, but given an interest in promoting pro-Palestinian public opinion, one can look at this subject soberly, with no ‘antisemitic’ intent. Whether Jewish-ness and Zionism connect here, and whether this makes any difference in understanding Zionist oppression of Palestinians, are open questions, and I for one look for ‘Zionist’ rather than ‘Jewish’ publicists. But why should this be taboo? At any rate, on this subject Atzmon delivers a one-liner: “As I have said earlier, I do not believe in Jewish conspiracies: everything done in the open.” (p 76) But his real view is that “In fact the opposite [than a conspiracy] is the case. It isn’t a plot and certainly not a conspiracy for it was all in the open. It is actually an accident.” (pp 30, 21)

To be avoided is the situation where only supporters of Israel can point to ethnic-ideological connections while critics of Israel cannot. If we want to understand the entity committing the Palestinicide, the only line to be drawn is at hate speech based on ethnic, racial and religious criteria.

My objections

The ambiguity of ‘Jewish’
As shown above, some of Atzmon’s statements fail to distinguish clearly between his 2nd and 3rd categories – between Jews by biological origin and those whose priority is their (Jewish) cultural identity – and could thus be read as ‘antisemitic’. I find however no evidence of hate of, distaste for, or even criticism of, ‘Jews’. Complicating judgment of these statements is the fact that when they are ‘philosemitic’ they are not, in our mainstream discourse, seen as objectionable. (p 51) Not only ‘Jewish humour’, but quotidian political analysis routinely refers to ‘Jewish’ – not ‘Zionist’ or ‘Israeli’ – identity.

One Israeli analyst for instance correlates Israeli “right” and “left” stances with “where on our scale of identity we place Jewish identity”, quoting Netanyahu saying, “The leftists have forgotten what it is to be Jewish.” Still, I believe Atzmon should avoid sentences that use the unqualified terms ‘Jews’ or ‘Jewish’ when the subject is identity politics. The statement “I grasped that Israel and Zionism were just parts of the wider Jewish problem” (p 15) is understood by those familiar with a long intra-Jewish discourse, but not by the wider world. It takes a lot of context to de-fuse a statement like, “With contempt, I am actually elaborating on the Jew in me” – the context coming three paragraphs later, namely that “Jewish-ness isn’t at all a racial category…” (pp 94-95)

Tribal supremacy

As already touched on, while the Jewish supremacy of the Jewish state’s Zionism is obvious, Wandering does not demonstrate to my satisfaction that Jewish-ness is supremacist. Now if Jewish political culture (‘Jewish-ness’) is Zionism, the claim is tautologically true, but Atzmon maintains throughout that they are different. To be sure, adherence to any ethnically- or religiously-defined group arguably implies a belief that the group is a bit better than rival groups: upholding türklük, or saying ‘I am a Christian’ says something about Kurds, and perhaps Islam, as well. But Atzmon’s claim is not only open to empirical examination, it is not a claim about (all) Jews as an ethnicity, and therefore not racist. Nevertheless, because this claim is so central to building the bridge between Jewish-ness and Zionism it deserves more argument.

Jews Against Zionism

Atzmon criticises groups that mix ethnic Jewish identity with the non-ethnic political goals of socialism and anti-Zionism; they put their Jewish-ness above the content of their political stance in addition to excluding non-Jews. (pp 62, 71-76, 86-87, 102-105) Groups such as British Jewish Socialists, Jews for Boycott of Israeli Goods, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, or Jewish Voice for Peace remain, he says, within the discourse of ethnicism rather than universal humanism:

Even saying ‘I do not agree with Israel although I am a Jew’ is to fall into the trap. Having fallen into the trap, one cannot leave the clan behind – one can hardly endorse a universal philosophy while being identified politically as a Jew. (pp 38-39)

He gives an instance of the conflicting loyalties of Jews who oppose Zionism or support socialism as Jews by relating a Jewish Chronicle interview with two founding members of British Jewish Socialists who want also to belong to the Jewish ethnic group or nation.

I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happens to be jewish’ – an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist’, which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcend itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethnocentric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. (pp 116-117)

The Marxist European Bund also mixed pro-socialist and pro-Jewish goals (pp 56, 116, 181), but I am not aware of what substantial differentiae would set Jewish socialism off from other brands.
It is however Atzmon’s attack on Jewish anti-Zionists that prompts the passage in Granting stating,

We will not allow a false sense of expediency to drive us into alliance with those who attack, malign, or otherwise attempt to target our political fraternity with all liberation struggles and movements for justice.

Yes, Atzmon targets that part of the pro-Palestinian movement defining itself as ‘Jewish’, believing that in the long run the cause is best served if we shed our ethnic political identities. He is asking whether, when the message is that “not all Jews are Zionists” (p 102), the main goal is to protect the good name of Jews, to retain some Jewish-ness, or to further the Palestinian cause. I believe Atzmon is here too severe in his critique, firstly because many such Jews fighting for Palestinian rights have impeccable motives, and secondly because there is a gain for Palestinians when a message to world opinion is that criticism of Israel does not entail being against Jews as Jews.

I am not aware that investigations into both ‘Jewishness’ and ‘Jewish ethics’ in connection with Zionism have revealed any difference in content between ‘Jewish’ anti-Zionism and ethno-religiously neutral anti-Zionism (i.e. universal ethics). I also accept the common observation that “Anti-Zionist (or Israel-critical) organizing, then, plays a crucial role in establishing a new secular Jewish identity, a field dominated by Zionism in Western nations for decades.” But again, the groups often identify themselves as Jewish for public-relations reasons, and indeed, why shouldn’t some such activists promote both anti-Zionism and the good name of their Jewish ethnos?

The social-marketing desirability of de-coupling Jewishness from criticism of Israel, which Atzmon misses or rejects (p 102), is expressed by the group ‘Jews for Justice for Palestinians’ (which notabene supports the two-state solution and is thus not anti-Zionist):

As well as organising to ensure that Jewish opinions critical of Israeli policy are heard in Britain, we extend support to Palestinians trapped in the spiral of violence and repression. We believe that such actions are important in countering antisemitism and the claim that opposition to Israel’s destructive policies is itself antisemitic.

While in the long or even medium run it is good to eliminate ethnocentricity from politics, there is perhaps now still some benefit for the Palestinian cause in having explicitly Jewish allies.

Finally, it slanders the many sincere anti-Zionist Jews organised as Jews to claim that they “hate the Goyim” (p 55), that they are (only) there “to keep the debate within the family” (p 102). While I sympathise with Atzmon’s attempt to “untangle the knot” (p 15) of religion, ethnicity and Jewish identity politics, and agree we should first and foremost explicitly embrace universal ethics, he here overstates his case. It also seems merely polemical to claim that “when it comes to ‘action’ against the so-called ‘enemies of the Jewish people’, Zionists and ‘Jewish anti-Zionists’ act as one people – because they are one people.” (p 102) Philosophical analysis of what Zionism has to do with Jewish-ness is still a nascent field, and I urge Atzmon to criticise but not ridicule all organised ‘anti-Zionist Jews’.

Alan Greenspan

Atzmon offers a cogent argument that Alan Greenspan’s economic policies were disastrous, but asserts that Greenspan, by creating an economic boom, “found a… way to facilitate or at least divert… attention from the wars perpetrated by the largely Jewish neo-conservatives in Afghanistan and Iraq.” (pp 27-30) He however neither offers evidence that Greenspan intended the boom to enable the expensive warmongering, nor criticises him for Zionism. He merely calls him a “rich Jew”. (p 27) This not only feeds the ‘antisemitic’ picture of the unscrupulous Jewish money-grubber but is based on Greenspan’s being a Jew by origin, not any purported Jewish political identity or culture. I also happen to know that the foreign-policy views of Greenspan are much closer to those of Ron Paul, and that in 1969 he paid for the bail and lawyer of my best friend who had refused to be drafted to go fight in Vietnam. Atzmon’s digression on Greenspan is harmful or at least pointless in the battle for justice for Palestinians.

An objection to Granting

The anti-colonialist ‘self-determination’ discourse must today compete with the individual-rights discourse. While Atzmon adheres strictly to the latter and sees the dangers in the self-determination of groups (pp 52, 105-106), Granting refers to the Arab-Palestinian “homeland” and the “self-determination… of the Palestinian people” (emphasis added); the text speaks of “our native lands”. The “our” can refer to those comprising the large majority of those who have lived there during the last dozen-plus centuries and happened to be ‘Arabs’ or ‘Semites’ and overwhelmingly Moslem; or it can be ethnicist, meaning Arab Semites, perhaps describing the signatories. Here perhaps we have contrasting visions of the one-state vision broadly shared by Atzmon, Barghouti and Abunimah, the latter seeing the constitution more in terms of bi-nationalism rather than the state’s absolute blindness towards ethnicity and religion. Yet why would this would be a reason to “disavow” Atzmon?

The signatories speak of “the struggle for Palestine and its national movement” and of theirs as “the Palestinian movement”. They also claim some rights in “defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle” and “the philosophy underpinning it”. Some sectarian as well as secular anti-Zionist Palestinians might disagree with this but, recalling the very first accusation against Atzmon (above), the point is that unless one excludes Israeli Jews from voting in the future secular, democratic state, Atzmon can speak not only universally but for himself as a citizen. I agree that one state is a bigger ask for the Palestinians than for the Israeli Jews, who as colonists are being invited to remain. But even outsiders like myself have the right to support any part of the ‘Palestinian movement’ we agree with. These questions about homelands and leadership deserve discussion rather than disavowal.

Granting speaks as well of Atzmon’s “obsession with ‘Jewishness’”, but this would surely be only Atzmon’s problem. The call moreover characterises Atzmon’s “attacks on anyone who disagrees with his [alleged] obsession with ‘Jewishness’” as “vicious”. However, in Wandering he aims no criticism at critics of his concept of Jewish-ness, and while I find sarcasm that occasionally goes too far, “vicious” is a crass mis-characterisation.

Other takes on Jewishness

How does Atzmon’s anti-Jewish-ness compare with other types of pro- or anti-Jewishness? Witness a Jewish-critical statement of Meron Benvenisti:

I would say that what characterizes us collectively is ethnic hatred, ethnic recoil, ethnic contempt and ethnic patronizing.

He balances this generalising take on the Jewish “collective” with the caveat that “I would not categorize us all as racists”, exactly paralleling Atzmon’s distinction between 2nd– and 3rd-category Jews; he attests racism only of a “large segment” of Jewish Israeli society. Benvenisti by the way also makes the statement that he is “proud to be a white sabra [native-born Israeli Jew]”. Is Benvenisti an anti-Jewish racist, a pro-Jewish one, or neither?

Philo-Jewishness statements likewise may or may not be ‘philosemitic’. In a Guardian interview Arnold Wesker utters, “A reverence for the power of the intellect is for me a definition of Jewishness:…” Now, a definition has a genus and one or more differentiae, so what distinguishes “Jewishness” as a type of sociological reification is a reverence for the power of the intellect. The inescapable corollary is that other ethnic (religious? cultural?) groups have no, or less, such reverence. It is perhaps evidence of this purported reverence that a website proudly lists Jewish Nobel laureates.
What are we to make of the observation of one of these Nobel laureates, Saul Bellow, on a trip to Jerusalem, that “a few Arab hens are scratching up dust and pecking”? That “Jewish claims in Jerusalem are legitimate”? That Israelis have a tough life “all because [they] wished to lead Jewish lives in a Jewish state”? That “When the Jews decided, through Zionism, to ‘go political’, they didn’t know what they were getting into”? That (according to A.B. Yehoshua) “Perhaps there is something exceptional in all our Jewishness [which] to us… is clear and we can feel it…”? That Bellow’s one academic colleague who criticised Zionism “went out to jog on a boiling Chicago afternoon and died of heart failure”? Bellow, who believes in “the moral meaning of Israel’s existence” and that it “stands for something in Western history”, uses ethnic, political and culture concepts interchangeably. Is Bellow an anti-Arab racist, a pro-Jewish one, or neither?

Many Jews-by-origin reject Zionism but retain Jewishness. Paul Knepper writes of Michael Polanyi:

In making the case for a Jewish state as the solution to anti-Semitism, Zionists had thrown up an array of mistaken identities, defining Jewishness in political, religious, and cultural terms. Polanyi rejected this as inward-looking, even reactionary; he pursued an outward-looking understanding based on the relationship of Jews to non-Jews. Polanyi saw assimilated Jews [like himself] not as running away or denying Jewish identity, but instead, as pursuing a truer and more significant expression of Jewishness.

Atzmon agrees with the first sentence but argues against finding identity in what one is not, and abandons the quest for Jewish-ness as such. (pp 31-36, 58-63, passim)

Eric Hobsbawm, the unobservant Jew who called himself a “non-Jewish Jew” and “not a Jewish historian [but an] historian who happened to be Jewish” (also Atzmon, pp 16-18), similarly saw a need to retain some “Jewishness”, even if it consisted merely of not being ashamed to be Jewish. He said of his friend Isaiah Berlin in contrast, “His Jewish identity implied identity with Israel because he believed that the Jews should be a nation.”

I have read only the introduction to Judith Butler’s Parting Ways, where she outlines the Jewishness of her formation and many of the ethical sources she draws on but acknowledges the paradox – perhaps contradiction – of holding values that are simultaneously universal and Jewish. (pp 26, 18) As the jacket of her book states,

Jewish ethics not only demand a critique of Zionism, but must transcend its exclusive Jewishness in order to realize the ethical and political ideals of living together in radical democracy.

She is a proponent of one secular, democratic state in Palestine searching for “a different Jewishness… [and] the departure from Jewishness as an exclusionary framework for thinking both ethics and politics.” (p 2) Her book promises [recalling Polanyi, above] “to locate Jewishness in the moment of its encounter with the non-Jewish, in the dispersal of the self that follows from that encounter [mainly with Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish].” (p 26)

Conclusions

Within Israel’s left, Atzmon’s ideas and formulations ruffle few feathers. As Ha’aretz journalist Yaron Frid says, lamenting Israel’s loss of Atzmon, “The score, for now: 1-0, Palestine leading.” In Israel Atzmon’s mother commented, “[The book] is not at all anti-Semitic. Gilad has a problem with Jewishness, he talks about three categories of Jews, but you have to read everything to understand – rather than bring quotations and take them out of context… I am very proud of my son.” (ibid.) But a mother would say that, wouldn’t she?

Atzmon insists that the desire for a Jewish nation arises out of Jewish suffering’s experienced specialness and asks what is then left of Jewish-ness when identification with (the uniqueness of) Jewish suffering is overcome. He asserts that Israel is not just another colonial power, but one driven by a distinctly Jewish ideology, and he convinced me that we must understand this Jewish-ness to understand for instance AIPAC, or to see that the West Bank to be given up by Israel in some phantasmagoric two-state settlement is not the West Bank, but Judea and Samaria. Yes, talking about a culture as opposed to some number of that culture’s members holds risks of conflation and ambiguity, and some of Atzmon’s discussion is an intra-Jewish one. But his book undoubtedly illuminates the ‘prosemitic’ racist ideology fatal to Palestinians. Perceptions differ, of course, but I do not see how anyone can read the whole book, with open ears, and find Atzmon ‘antisemitic’ or racist.
Granting’s signatories write that they “stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights.” I urge them to re-read (or read) Wandering, present a definition of ‘antisemitic’ racism, and based on textual evidence debate whether Atzmon’s words fulfill it. Because Jew-hatred has been so trivialised by Zionists, accusations of ‘antisemitism’ must be especially well-argued. For the ODS movement unity at any cost is not essential, but we need our energies to help transform Israel into a normal country respecting all humans’ rights. Unless racism is proven, one should bury the hatchet.

Blake Alcott is an ecological economist living in Cambridge, England. He can be reached at: blakeley@bluewin.ch.

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: