Israeli Arms Trade, The Lobby and the Meaning of Chosenness


tehran Times .jpg


 “America is willing to sacrifice its young soldiers and national interests and even its economy for Israel,” Gilad Atzmon, who was born in a Jewish family in Israel and grew up in Jerusalem al-Quds, tells the Tehran Times. *
Atzmon, who now lives in Britain, also says, “Israeli pressure groups seem to believe that they are actually more powerful and certainly more important than the American constitution.” 
The following is the text of the interview:

Tehran Times:       Numerous rights bodies have slammed Western countries’ arms trade with Israel. What is your comment?

Gilad Atzmon: For decades, Israel has been selling killing machines to the most oppressive regimes around the world and this shouldn’t be surprising, as Israel itself is at the forefront of the list of oppressive regimes.

 Embarrassed by the Israeli government’s current arming of Azerbaijan in its war with Armenia,  Holocaust scholar Israel W. Charny penned an article for The Times of Israel titled:  Would Israel sell a used drone to a Hitler? Charny admits in his piece that Israel’s conduct is fundamentally unethical. He ends his commentary writing, “to my Armenian colleagues and friends, I can only say that as a Jew and as an Israeli, I am mortified – and angry.”

 I would think that if Israel’s leading genocide historian allows himself to admit in an Israeli nationalist outlet that the Jewish State is profiting from non-ethical arms trade, the rest of us should be entitled to engage with this topic freely and to use every possible platform to denounce Israel or anyone else from profiting from non- ethical practices.

 The issues go well beyond Israel’s arms trade. A few days ago we learned from the Jewish Press about a Bipartisan bill in America that would give Israel a say on Middle East arms sales. The bill “would require the President to consult with the Israeli government to ensure concerns are settled.” If the bill passes, the USA military industrial complex trade would be dependent on Israeli consent.  

Tehran Times:   How great is the influence of the Zionist and Jewish lobbies in the United States and how can this status quo change?

GA: The facts regarding the immense influence of Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the USA and other Western countries have been established for a while. One can refer to The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a detailed study by two of the most influential American social scientists  (Prof. John Mersheimer & Prof. Stephen Walt). Another leading American political scientist admired by a generation of academics who also covered the topic is, of course, Prof James Petras in his book The Power of Israel in the United States.

What can be done about the well documented domination of AIPAC? I would like to believe that the most effective method to approach this topic would be to point squarely at The Lobby and its corrosive impact: this entails pointing the finger at the wars the USA fights on behalf of Israel, the sanctions that the USA mounts for Israel, the fact that America is willing to sacrifice its young soldiers and national interests and even its economy for Israel. Theoretically speaking, American citizens are entitled to voice such criticisms as freedom of speech is enshrined in the first amendment of their constitution. Israeli pressure groups seem to believe that they are actually more powerful and certainly more important than the American constitution. A few months ago we learned that Right wing activists attempted to spread new laws across Republican controlled states that would suppress criticism on public university campuses of Israel and its occupation of Palestinian territory.

By now, the USA is practically functioning as a remote and subservient Israeli satellite. I am unable to identify  any genuine political force in the USA that can change this anytime soon. I do not see anyone within American politics who is willing to tackle the matter. But the American people, like the Brits and the French are no fools, they see it all.

Tehran Times:    Though Israel is violating and defying international law on a daily basis, its Western supporters and allies continue to support these actions or at least turn a blind eye to what is taking place. How do you assess this double standard?

GA: In general, it’s a good practice not to overestimate people’s intelligence. But Israel and its Lobby make the opposite mistake; they tend to believe that people are far stupider than they are.

People do see what is going on and the general discomfort with Israel and its lobby is growing rapidly. People do notice Israeli criminality, they also notice their politicians on all levels operating as foreign agents for a criminal state.  Israel and The Lobby interpret this rise of awareness as ‘growing anti-Semitism,’ but this is hyperbole. A general mass awareness has surfaced. The Israelis and The Lobby know that once you see the full picture, you can’t just un-see it. In that respect, Israel is facing a wall of silent resistance and the consequences of this reality are unpredictable.

It is fascinating to observe the tsunami of mass protests that we see within Israel against Netanyahu and institutional corruption. The Israelis, or at least many of them, are also tired of themselves being themselves. It is very possible that in line with Jewish history, it will actually  be the Jews who bring their current empire down. As far as I can tell they are better at that battle than anyone else. 

Tehran Times:       How do the Western countries exploit Human Rights as a tool to apply their policies and how do they politicize Human Rights?

GA: Human rights issues are close to our hearts. We don’t like to see abuse of others, we hate discrimination, we are appalled by racism of any kind. Seemingly, some were clever enough to attach barcodes to these genuine universal and ethical  feelings. As things stand, human rights matters have morphed into a profitable industry. Many human rights campaigns are funded by elements who are themselves dedicated human rights abusers. 

Since the Palestinian struggle is close to my heart it took me little time to find out that while the BDS movement was receiving money from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, BDS changed its goal statement and practically gave up on the Palestinian Right of Return.

In 2012 the BDS National Committee in Ramallah made a crucial change to its goal statement. It changed the wording of its original (June 2005) mission statement from “demanding that Israel end its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” to demanding that Israel end “its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967*” My attempt to find out who introduced this change revealed that this new wording first appeared in Omar Barghouti’s 2011 book, ‘BDS: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: the Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights’ (page 6).

It seems that since 2011, The BDS National Committee basically abandoned the most precious Palestinian right—it drifted away from the commitment to land occupied since 1948 and limited its struggle to the liberation of lands occupied in 1967.  Further attempts to clarify who made the change and by what process revealed that this significant change was made in a clandestine manner—it appeared only in English. It has never appeared in Arabic or any other language. It is evident that the change took place behind the backs of the Palestinian people. Despite BDS’ claim to be a ‘civil society’ representing more than 170 Palestinian organizations, Palestinians were totally unaware of the BDS National Committee’s compromise of their mission.  

Further investigation revealed that BDS—like most Palestinian NGOs—was funded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute. In 2013 I was asked to review a book titled Israel/Palestine and the Queer International,by Sarah Schulman. It was Schulman who resolved the mysterious change in the  BDS goal statement. In her search for funding for a young Palestinian Queer USA tour in support of BDS, Schulman wrote  that she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:

“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Israel/Palestine and the Queer Internationalby Sarah Schulman p. 108).

Here is clear and embarrassing evidence of a crude intervention made by George Soros’ institute in an attempt to shape Arab and Islamic culture and political life. We also learn about the manner in which Soros’ Open Society Institute introduces gay and queer politics to the region. Apparently money for a tour promoting Palestine and BDS is traveling from Soros’ Open Society to Jordan and then back to the USA with the hope that such a manoeuvre would “inspire” gays in Iran.

This makes it clear why  BDS had “good reason” to remain silent regarding its funding sources. After all, being funded directly or indirectly by a liberal Zionist philanthropist, a man who also funds the openly Zionist JStreet and was invested in Israeli companies in the West Bank, is indeed embarrassing. But the meaning of it is rather devastating. The discourse of the solidarity of the oppressed is shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor who funds the movement of the oppressed. We see this in the Palestine solidarity movement, we saw the same thing in Occupy Wall Street and currently in some segments of BLM activity. Instead of genuinely caring for the oppressed, Human rights and solidarity movements often morph into policing forces that dedicate themselves to controlling the so-called opposition.

The case of the language of BDS has a good ending. Though Omar Barghouti didn’t change the words printed in his book where he bluntly compromised on occupied land demands on behalf of the Palestinian people. The BDS movement eventually changed its goal statement once again. It now resembles the original 2005 statement opposing occupation of ALL Arab Land.  

Tehran Times:      Why doesn’t Israel accept the idea of a nuclear-free zone in the region?

GA: The real meaning of thinking yourself chosen is in attributing a unique sense of impunity to yourself and to no one else. In real politics this means that your Jewish State is the only nuclear power in the region, your Air Force is the only one to fly F-35s, your army is not committed to any recognized ethical standards, your military industry trades with the darkest regimes around. Try to imagine a world where everyone believes themselves to be chosen.

  • In the Interview the Iranian outlet refers to me as “a Jewish political activist.” I wrote to the Tehran Times and pointed out that I am neither an activist nor I am a Jew. However, by the time I posted this article, my request is yet to make any impact.


This is The March of Return

March 30, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Despite the relentless efforts of Jewish solidarity groups to derail the Palestinian Right of Return, today in Gaza thousands of peaceful marchers made it to the border. The Israelis are in a state of panic. By the time I post this news item seven Palestinians were murdered and hundreds are wounded by the IDF.  

These photos were found on Israel media outlets (such as Ynet and Times of Israel):


Electronic Intifada probably decided not to cover this story.

Below is a screenshot of EI’s front page  earlier today. I guess that the real intifada is very different from its ‘electronic’ version…

Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 02.17.42.png

Controlled opposition? You Bet!

By Nahida Exiled Palestinian

I find this precious admission -by none other than the handler himself bragging about his role in “engineering” Palestinian actions and reaction, I find it horrifically disturbing yet not all surprising, in fact it offers a profound confirmation to all what I have had suspected and have been writing about all along

With the above few words by Tony Greenstien, we caught the “handler” red handed, offering us the damning irrefutable evidence against his own work as a “handler” par excellence. We stand stunned before one notorious Jewish anti-Zionist -who “perfected” his role in controlled opposition, exposing his dirty tricks in manipulating Palestinians, meddling with their discourse, attempting to control their narrative and steer and divert their noble struggle of liberation into one of ADL battlefields, namely “fighting antisemitism”.

Under such conditions and with this glaring example of preemptive calculated strikes, aiming at defining the aims, tactics, and agenda for Palestinians and steering the pro-Palestinian movement as a whole via “handling” Palestinians themselves and “engineering” Palestinian discourse, it is imperative for the Palestinians and Palestine Solidarity movement to introduce regulations that will shut the door before any such manipulators, and open doors for unrestricted intellectual debate, freedom of expression and transparency. Failure to address these serious issue would only cause the continuation and aggravation of the crippling shift that has already befallen the movement.

It is therefore essential to crack open the shells of exclusion and secrecy of  Jewish anti-Zionist groups, wherein the Greensteins of our world thrive and prosper in their exclusive Jewish only groups, to plot and “engineer”, and wherein discussions are consumed by fighting “antisemitism” and bashing “holocaust deniers”. Time has come to put an end to exclusive private meeting in which discussions are exhausted by questions like which “unfavourable” information should be concealed, which debate to “allow”, which books to burn, which people to disavow, which motions to propose and which events to protest or to oppose.

It is paramount to expose the origins and “engineers” of such sinister attacks against free thinking activists who might not conform to “permissible” line of discourse, and to challenge the ghettos in which such manipulation is cooked and shamelessly “engineered”.


Oh boy, haven’t we seen that before!

Remember this?

A glimpse into the mindset and modus operandi of AZZ:










Who pulls Ali Abunimah’s strings?

May 05, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

In 2012, Ali Abunimah and twenty-one other Palestinians called for my disavowal. The call was nothing special: the usual set of clumsy accusations that had nothing to do with my work.

At the time, Abunimah and his colleagues were subject to much criticism and denunciation by intellectuals, scholars, activists and various political bodies. Needless to say, the equivalent Jewish solidarity organisations were, on the contrary, only thrilled by the call.

This week, and five years after the original call for my disavowal, we learn from Jewish ‘anti’- Zionist, Tony Greenstein, that it was he who “engineered” the whole thing. 

The question that comes to my mind is, how is it possible that twenty-two Palestinian activists, three of them notable public figures, find themselves “engineered” by the likes of Tony Greenstein, a Jewish ethnic activist regarded by many supporters of Palestine as little more than an Israeli asset? Is it possible that the person who runs Electronic Intifada is, In fact, handled by a Jewish puppeteer, a person who himself has an extensively dubious past including a significant criminal record of credit card theft, shop lifting and vandalism?

Palestinian Solidarity has, by now, been reduced into a collective paralysis but now, at least, we know why:  the discourse of the oppressed is shaped by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

So I am taking this opportunity to thank Mr Greenstein for his admission. It is indeed, most timely since it is precisely this Jewish appreciation for the incalculable value of controlled opposition which is exactly where my forthcoming book Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto lands.

It seems that once again, and after all these years, Tony Greenstein will be running my PR campaign. Hooray.

BDS Changed its Goal Statement Once Again

A to Zion-The definitive Israeli Lexicon 

A to Zion-The definitive Israeli Lexicon

By Gilad Atzmon

When the call for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions of Israeli goods was established in 2005 in Ramallah its first demand was for Israel to:

Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194

 “End[ing] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantl[ing] the Wall” (

This call didn’t leave room for interpretation. Back in 2005, the BDS movement disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

But in 2010, its primary goal was changed significantly into:

“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.”

This change didn’t leave much room for a doubt. The BDS has become an instrument to legitimise the Jewish State within its pre 1967 borders.

There was no public record of the process that led to this change. And, as if to prove its deceptive nature, the change appeared only in English and has never been integrated into any of the official BDS publications in Arabic. It is likely that most Palestinians were not aware of the change made on their behalf by people who claim to be their ‘grassroots’ representatives.

My research suggested that the change in the BDS goal statement that, de facto, legitimised the Jewish State took place at the time the BDS movement became popular amongst Jewish activists and started accepting funds from liberal Zionist George Soros’s Open Society Institute.*

But the BDS campaign has now decided to change its first goal once again. It now reads:

“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall” (


The 2010 embarrassing reference to the 1967 Israeli occupation is now  removed. However once you read the small letters, you grasp that BDS is more of a JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) rather than a Palestinian voice.  Though the goal does refer, once again, to Israeli “colonization of all Arab land,” the statement now makes it clear that it limits its demands to territories occupied in 1967:

“International law recognises the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel. As part of its military occupation, Israel steals land and forces Palestinians into ghettos, surrounded by checkpoints, settlements, and watchtowers as supplemental to the illegal apartheid Wall. Israel has imposed a medieval siege on Gaza, turning it into the largest open air prison in the world. Israel also regularly carries out large-scale assaults on Gaza that are widely condemned as constituting war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Though the first goal may resemble the original 2005 BDS call, in practice it is consistent with the left Zionist mantra – it opposes the occupation.

Disappointing? Not really. Treacherous? It depends on who you ask.

The truth of the matter is that the  BDS is not really a Palestinian grassroots organization as it claims to be. It is an integral  part of the ever growing solidarity industry. Though I don’t have any doubt about the benevolent intentions of many BDS supporters and leaders, the BDS movement has managed to unwittingly serve Israel and its interests. It has managed, for instance, to divert the essential discussion about the legitimacy of the Jewish State and the Right of Return into an endless – and meaningless – discussion about Israeli products. It, de facto, legitimized the existence of the Jewish State over the land of Palestine.

*You can read more about BDS, Soros money promoting BDS campaign here:

George Schwartz Soros – The Oligarch Who Owns The Left

August 18, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

An email leaked recently by Wikileaks reveals that in 2011, Jewish oligarch George Schwartz Soros gave step by step instructions to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on how to handle unrest in Albania.

Soros even nominated three candidates whom he believed to “have strong connections to the Balkans.”

Not surprisingly, several days after the email was sent to Clinton, the EU sent one of Soros’ nominees to meet Albanian leaders in Tirana to try to mediate an end to the unrest.

Soros’ email sheds light on who really sets the tone for the West.  Clearly it isn’t our so-called ‘democratically elected’ politicians. Instead, it is a small cadre ofoligarchs, people like Soros, Goldman and Sachs. People who are driven by mammonism – Capitalism that is based on trade as opposed to production. The mammonites are interested in the pursuit of mammon (wealth) purely for the sake of mammon.

Soros is, without doubt, the most illustrious mammonite of our time. The Jewish billionaire is the “man who broke the Bank of England,” an adventure that made him more than $1 billion in one day in September of 1992. In 2002, a Paris court found Soros guilty of using inside information to profit from a 1988 takeover deal of Bank Societe Generale. In the days leading to the Brexit vote the speculative capitalist used The Guardian’s pages in an attempt to manipulate the Brits into following his advice on Brexit. Apparently the Brits didn’t heed Soros’ wisdom. And, so far, it seems that Soros’ predictions of doom were far fetched, verging on phantasmic. Still open is the question of why the Guardian provided a platform for the speculative capitalist oligarch. Is it a news outlet or an extension ofMammonism’s long arm?

The Jewish oligarch has developed a huge infrastructure that assists him in pursuing his speculative capitalist agenda. Soros realised many decades ago that it is very easy to buy leftist institutions and activists. Since the 1980s, Soros has used his Open Society Institute to invest a fraction of his shekels in some ‘left leaning’ political groups and NGOs worldwide. Soros funds NGOs, activists and Left institutions that are willing to subscribe to his agenda. They support a cosmopolitan philosophy and are dedicated to Soros’ anti nationalist mantra. The outcome has been devastating. Instead of uniting working people, Soros funded ‘left’ organisations divide workers into sectarian groups defined by gender, sex orientation and skin colour.

Many of those who support Palestinian causes were shocked to discover that Soros funded the BDS movement although he was simultaneously invested in Israeli industry and Israeli factories operating in the West Bank such as Soda Stream.

Soros also bankrolls J Street, the American Jewish lobby group that controls the opposition to the ultra Zionist AIPAC.  Looking at the huge list of Soros’ supported organisations reveals that the light Zionist oligarch supports some good causes that are particularly good for the Jews and Soros himself.

Soros seems to believe in the synagogueisation ofsociety.  He supports the breaking of society into biologically oriented tribes: e.g., Blacks, Women, LGBT, Lesbians. He has invested millions in dividing the working class. Divide and rule is what it is.

Traces of his destructive Open society Institute can be identified in Iran’s failed Velvet Revolution,  anti Assad NGO activity in Syria , behind  anti Putin intense activism and of course the Gazi Park events in Turkey.  These so called ‘civilian’ and ‘popular’ uprises have at least one common denominator. They attempt to destabilise regimes that oppose Zio-cons as well as the mammonite world order.

The One Thing I Really Like about BDS

June 07, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

is the fact that it is very successful in evoking manifestations of the ultimate forms of Jewish power.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo declared this week:

“If you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you.”

New York’s governor is putting all companies and individuals that support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement on a blacklist. But what led the Catholic governor to pander so shamelessly to Israel and its lobbies?

See Video here

This is exactly the question BDS leaders would prefer to avoid.

BDS was formed to bring the occupation of Palestine to an end.  It mistakenly contends  that Israel is an ordinary (colonial) state that can be forced to change its policies by a few insignificant boycotts.

The BDS movement has consistently ignored the fact that Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State.’ It is supported by the vast majority of Jews and enjoys the total support of pretty much every Jewish institution worldwide.

The BDS leadership has tried to ignore the fact that pro Israel Jewish lobbies (AIPAC, CRIF, CFI, LFI etc.)  are dominating Western foreign affairs pushing for global wars (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran). The BDS seems to forget that it is Jewish oligarchs that dominate media, Hollywood and finance. Israel is far from being either alone or an ordinary state.

Since Israel is the Jewish State, one would expect BDS to boycott all Jewish institutions and businesses throughout the world that are linked with the Jewish State and its crimes. One would expect, for instance, BDS to boycott George Soros who invests in Israel and in the occupied territories. This is obviously a bit problematic because Soros’ Open Society Institute also supports BDS directly and indirectly.*

One may wonder how is it possible that after so many decades of Israeli brutality, the Palestinian solidarity movement is still struggling to grasp the most fundamental fact about the oppressor: Israel doesn’t define itself as the Zionist state.’ It calls itself ‘the Jewish state.’ It is the face of world Jewry and it carries the flag most Jews around the globe identify with.

The Palestinian solidarity movement in its current form is dominated by Jewish activists.  It is, in essence, a Jewish project designed to divert attention from the ‘J’ to the ‘Z.’

In recent years we have seen JVP, Mondoweiss and BDS running relentlessly vicious campaigns against the best and most significant voices around (Allison Weir, George Galloway, Ken O’Keefe, Greta Berlin, Norman Finkelstein and many others.)

But, I think BDS is perhaps unintentionallyserving its purpose- – it unites the Jews. Both Zionist and the so called ‘anti.’ It provokes the Jewish world to expose its might. It reminds the rest of us of what we are up against.

* When BDS realised that Soros is invested in SodaStream it didn’t call to boycott George Soros, it instead called Soros to withdraw his investment…


Omar Accomplished His Job, Omar Is Free To Go

March 29, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

“The Nigger accomplished his job, the Nigger is free to go,*” is a common racist Israeli adage.  This is how the Israeli elite now treats Omar Barghouti. It is appalling, but not unusual.

Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri told Ynet yesterday;  “Omar Barghouti uses rights given to him by Israel to act against it around the world.”

Deri was one of four government ministers to participate in an afternoon question and answer at an anti-BDS conference in Jerusalem.

By law, Palestinians cannot return to Palestine. But Omar Barghouti accomplished the impossible.  “Omar Barghouti,” Deri said, “was born in Qatar and received resident status in 1994 after marrying an Israeli woman from Acre and claiming his life is in Israel.”

It seems Barghouti enjoyed liberties other Palestinians and even Israeli citizens can only dream of. Not only was he allowed to return to Palestine, he lived in Ramallah and was entitled to travel freely between Israel and the PA. He travelled all around the world campaigning against the Israeli occupation. He studied at Tel Aviv University then called upon the rest of the world to boycott that university. Bizarrely, Omar Barghouti proved that Israel is a tolerant country.

Minister Deri said, “he (Barghouti) was given rights similar to those of a citizen and he took advantage of our enlightened state to portray us as the most horrible state in the world.”

The truth is obvious. Right wing Israeli politicians knew about Omar Barghouti’s activities all along. Israel allowed Omar Barghouti to travel around the globe and condemn the occupation. Israel allowed it because from a very early stage BDS was an Israeli controlled opposition maneuver.

For Israel, BDS presented the ideal front on which to fight. Instead of battling for a Palestinian Right Of Return, that is ethically solid and backed by UN resolutions, the solidarity movement was reduced to an internal Jewish debate over the “Right to BDS.” Instead of dealing with the acute Palestinian refugee crisis in Syria and Lebanon, our devoted solidarity campaigners gathered around their local food store to protest against gefilte fish made in Israel.

But what did Barghouti give in return? Pretty much everything.

In 2005, the BDS’s first goal demanded that Israel“End[ing] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantl[ing] the Wall” (

This represented a clear and brave challenge to the legitimacy of the Jewish State,

At some point BDS’s primary goal was changed significantly, it now reads: “Ending [its] occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.” (

How was this change adopted? Where is the protocol for such a detrimental shift of position to compromise on the most precious Palestinian principle, i.e. 1948?  Who made the BDS into an instrument of legitimisation of pre ‘67 Israel? Those well versed in the ins and out of the BDS movement point to Omar Barghouti and the evidence is undeniable.

The first record of BDS’s revised and diluted goal statement appeared publicly on page 6 of Omar Barghouti’s book, “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions,” published 26 May 2011.

Boycott Divestment Sanctions by Omar-Barghouti. page 6

Boycott Divestment Sanctions by Omar-Barghouti. page 6


In 2011-2012, at the time the call for the Right of Return was gaining momentum, Omar Barghouti changed the BDS goal statement into a Zio-friendly text. Why? Why did the Palestinians allow him to get away with it? In fact, the BDS’s goal statement was only changed in English to appease so called ‘anti’ Zionist Jews. It was never translated into Arabic. It was done behind the backs of the Palestinian people and against their interests.

Then what is the Israeli fuss about now?  Why threaten to revoke Omar Barghouti’s residency status. “The Nigger accomplished his Job, the Nigger is free to go.” The Israelis have precedent on that front; they never look after their collaborators and partners. The Southern Lebanese Maronite militias were left to their fate once the IDF withdrew from Lebanon. Israel often exposes its Palestinian collaborators. This demoralises the Palestinians and leaves them feeling vulnerable and infiltrated.

For Israel Barghouti, has been a win win situation. They tell the world, ‘we let this Palestinian in and he turned against us.’  So Israel threatens to revoke Barghouti’s status. Let’s assume that such an action leads to widespread international condemnation and Israel reconsiders its move and retains Barghouti’s residency status. By doing so, Israel can prove to the world how ‘enlightened’ and ‘tolerant’ it is.

I wish the Palestinian liberation movement would be left to fierce tacticians and freedom fighters rather than trusting the clumsy hands of ethnic activists who are incapable of thinking past the notion of a picket.


*  In the the Israeli offensive adage “הכושי עשה את שלוהכושי יכול ללכת” the word ‘nigger’ (כושי) refers precisely to a black slave.

The UK Government, BDS and the Jews

February 18, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

The British government has issued new directives aimed at preventing public entities, universities and student unions from boycotting Israeli products. The new rules authorize the British government to take legal action against organizations that impose such boycotts.

Even as a supporter of every form of resistance to Israel and Zionism and a supporter of the BDS principle, I am thrilled by these new draconian measures, as I am always delighted when Jewish power manifests its true face. There is a problem though. BDS has never taken on Jewish power. BDS is in itself a manifestation of Jewish power.

The BDS movement was compromised from its onset. BDS changedits goal statement in an effort to appease its Jewish supporters and Zionist funders.* Many commentators now see that BDS has been reduced to an internal Jewish exchange that benefits Israel and Zionism. Instead of debating ‘Israel’s right to exist,’ the argument has been changed into various Jews arguing about the ‘right to BDS.’ This is a very clever move on Netanyahu/Mondoweiss’ part.

BDS, originally intended to mount economic and political pressure on Israel and its supporters, achieved the opposite. It united the Jews, both Zionists and the so called ‘anti,’ in a debate on BDS.

The new British anti BDS bill is a spectacle of Jewish power, both Zionist and ‘anti.’ BDS is now an internal Jewish debate. Read today’s Middle East Monitor report on the dissent to the new directive. The Palestinians are not even mentioned. Instead we learn about the good BDS Jews.  “Amongst those who have objected to the plans were British Jews from various organisations who defended the BDS movement as “a weapon of moral persuasion, deploying a tactic frequently used by powerless people in their opposition to racism, slavery and oppression.”

As if the opposition to the British Government wasn’t Jewish enough, the Middle East Monitor drops a few Jewish names to add texture to this chicken soup:

“Signed by Jacqueline Rose of the Independent Jewish Voices, Michael Kalmanovitz of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and Julia Bard of the Jewish Socialists’ Group, the letter further states how the only form of anti-Semitism the government is leaning toward is the belief “that all Jews outside Israel uncritically support Israel’s actions.”

I pray for the Palestinians that one day soon they will manage to reclaim their own struggle from its dominance by a league of oppressors.


In case you seek a “Kosher stamp of approval”, Naomi @JBIG is happy to give you one


* When the call for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions of Israeli goods was established in 2005 in Ramallah its first demand was for Israel to:

“End[ing] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantl[ing] the Wall” (

This call didn’t leave room for interpretation. Back in 2005, the BDS movement disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

But in 2010, its primary goal was changed significantly, it now reads:

“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall” (

There is no public record of the process that led to this change. And as if to prove its deceptive nature, the change appears only in English and has never been integrated into any of the official BDS publications in Arabic. It is likely that most Palestinians are not aware of the change made on their behalf by people who claim to be their ‘grass root’ representatives. Further study suggests that the change in the BDS goal statement that de-facto legitimizes the Jewish State took place at the time the BDS became popular amongst Jewish activists and accepted funds from liberal Zionist George Soros’s Open Society Institute. You can read more about BDS, Soros money promoting BDS campaign here:


Jewish Solidarity Spin: How Jews Undermine the Palestinian Cause

Keynote at University Temple United Methodist Church in Seattle, WA May 16, 2015

Bill Alford has managed to produce a sharp and fast edit of my recent talk (28 minutes). JVP attempted to block my American tour. They did the same to Alison Weir (I will publish JVP’s call to excommunicate Weir very  soon, it was leaked to me by three different JVP chapter leaders) . But the one thing JVP didn’t do is produce an answer to the issues raised in these talks. They better move fast because I do not have any plans to retire and I have much more to say.

Mazal Tov To Ludwig Watzal and The ‘Call For BDS’

May 20, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

 By Gilad Atzmon

It is encouraging to read that Ludwig Watzal, my prime detractor in Germany, has now fully embraced my criticism of Jewish liberals and the Jewish Left. Watzal now admits that the BDS Movement has been hijacked by Liberal Zionists.

Just a few years ago, Watzal labelled me a racist and an ‘anti-Semite’ for suggesting in “The Wandering Who” that the Jewish Left operates as a controlled opposition apparatus.

Watzal’s review of The Wandering Whocomplained that: “The book is very well written, which make its harmful and racist theses more dangerous.” His review also said, Atzmon’s “hatred is directed not only against the Zionists, but above all against Jewish Left, left anti-Zionists and those who oppose the Israeli government policy as Jews.”

But Watzal’s views appear to have evolved.

In an article published yesterday by MWCNEWS, one of my favourite dissident outlets, Watzal succumbs to my reasoning.  Watzal quotes me verbatim in his new article “Is The BDS Movement Hijacked By Liberal Zionists?”, but for some reason Watzal forgot to attribute my words to me. Sadly, integrity still hasn’t made it into Left culture, but we should not give hope, we shall give our allies on the left as much time as they need to catch up.

The following is a segment from my talk last week at the LA Levantine Cultural Centre:

Since 2012 I’ve been voicing criticism of the change that was introduced into the BDS goal statement by Omar Barghouti in a clandestine manner and behind the backs of the Palestinian people.

And here is Ludwig Watzal from yesterday’s article:

“The BDS movement was launched in 2005 with sound goals. The first was “ending the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall.” The phrase “all Arab lands” included also the territory of the State of Israel. This was interpreted by Zionist forces as delegitimizing the State of Israel. In 2010, that goal was secretly changed to the following: “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.” This change took place only in the English, but not in the Arabic version.

BDS and its main protagonists are financially supported by Georges Soros. He supports so-called progressive liberal causes and is considered a philanthropist and a liberal Zionist.”

It is crucial to understand that both BDS leader Omar Barghouti and BDS advocate Electronic Abunimah have been confronted numerous times and asked to explain publicly the treacherous change inserted into the BDS goal statement. Both Barghouti and Abunimah have repeatedly avoided the question and have refused to address the matter.

I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate Ludwig Watzal for his courageous step in favour of the truth. Truth and Justice are the road to peace.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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


By Charles E. Carlson


April 7, 2014

Mr. Omar Barghouti, Co -Founder, BDS Movement.

Dear Mr. Barghouti

I am adding my voice to Paul Larudee’s March 23,  open letter to you.  We have not met, I hope we do.   I am informed that you were a co-founder of an organization, BDS Movement in Palestine which has morphed  into a world wide network of individuals and organizations now referred to as the “BDS movement,” and that you do not  run the day to day project of that network.

To review what Mr. Laradee has already said, someone in BDS, The Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement has materially diluted the founding purposes agreed upon by yourself and 172 organizations in 2005.   The BDS Movement original “Call” urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by: “(1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the barrier Wall,” but this language has now been changed, apparently without notifying those of us who participate in the present, BDS movement.

The new  language is very different, as Mr Larudee pointed out: the  Call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by: “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.”  Mr. Larudee  calls these words, now found on the BDS website, “Soft Zionism:”  I agree.

This new BDS’s statement of purpose is prominent on its website as “What is BDS.”   It seems to effectively legitimizes confiscation of Palestinian lands taken prior to the “June 1967 war.” Therefore it abandons any Palestinians driven off his property or in exile between 1947 and  June 1967.

Is BDS compromised, Larudee asks?   I have personally observed several instances where this BDS change of purpose is already undercutting American church organizations that are finally beginning to see the cause of the Philistines as a responsibility.

One example is the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA).  In January, a unit inside the PCUSA,  The Palestine Mission Network became the first major church organization to present a comprehensive explanation of Zionism and Christian Zionism,  Zionism Unsettled, A Congregational Study Guide.  This manual  correctly defend the rights of all Palestinians right back to 1947. It tells the story of Nakba, and Israel’s ethnic cleansing of 500 villages, with no punches pulled.

Understandably, Israel and the Anti Defamation League are attacking the PCUSA.  The Presbyterian statement is now stronger and more truthful than BDS’s position.  The Anti Defamation League demand that the PCUSA general convention force its Palestine Mission Network to retract and stop selling Zionism Unsettled, A Congregational Study Guide.  I fear that BDS is confusing churches that are finally waking up to their Christian responsibilities!

Another example of the damage of BDS “Zionism soft” is found in a new article by Marjorie Cohn, Jewish Voices for Peace,  who wrote in, Israel’s War Against ‘BDS’ Movement.  Cohn quotes BDS original founding principles line and verse in defense of it.  Obviously Ms. Cohn and Jewish Voice for Peace do not know BDS has abandon this principal.

Many  BDS movement projects  seem to consume more human energy than can be gained.  It seems to have money to fund projects that do little financially to damage Israel, except very indirectly.  Israel’s most vulnerable side, its need for constant flow of external funds, is rarely spoken of.  “Divestment” is always indirect, where at best the financial damage will not materially limit Israel’s ability to carry on occupation.  In addition, I have noticed in my brief association with BDS movement that it has ignored possible new project that might impair Israel’s ability to occupy Palestine.  This seems to limit “Divestment” to a publicity game.  I will detail examples in a paper to follow after I have your response.

Paul Larudee asked, “is BDS headed in a different direction than its origins would indicate? Is it no longer a Palestinian movement, but rather a “soft” Zionist movement?”  I am concerned that two weeks after Paul Larudee’s open letter, the altered statement of purpose is still on the BDS website.

With Utmost Concern For The Philistines,

Charles E. Carlson,

Founder We Hold These Truths and Project Strait Gate (

Writer: Christian Zionism, the Tragedy and The Turning

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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


Please Sign the Palestinian Declaration Here

Is the BDS Democratic?

Open letter to Omar Barghouti, Co-founder, PACBI

by Paul Larudee / March 23rd, 2014

Dear Omar, Let me start by saying that you have done a lot for BDS and that BDS has done a lot for the Palestinian cause.  It is perhaps for this reason that we should all be concerned with potential corruption of the movement, and you most of all.  I refer to changes of wording, changes of direction and changes of priority within the movement. The change of wording is the infamous four words “occupied in June, 1967″ inserted into the first of three objectives in the mission statement portion of the 2005 BDS Call signed by 173 Palestinian organizations, such that the statement now demands of Israel: “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall…” (added phrase in italics) I understand your argument that this phrase only clarifies the meaning of the original statement, and that it changes the meaning not at all.  Even so, who gave you the right to make the change without consulting and getting the approval of the signatories to the original call?  Why was it inserted without even telling anyone, such that no one but you even knows when it was done?  If it is so uncontroversial, why not get it approved?
Why is the phrase needed, anyway?  You argue that it results in no change of meaning.  Why, then, is it not superfluous?  Since it is a bone of contention, just remove it and be done with it.I also understand that the offending phrase occurs only in the ”Introducing the BDS Movement” section of the website and that the original wording is preserved elsewhere.  However, this is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous.  The “Introducing the BDS Movement” section reproduces the three demands from the 2005 Call completely verbatim, except for the added four words, and then proceeds to make the claim that this wording is endorsed by the signatories of the 2005 BDS Call. This is deceptive and even fraudulent and must be corrected.  The altered wording has even been mistakenly quoted by Max Blumenthal in his book Goliath as being the wording of the original BDS Call.  Your misrepresentation has led directly to his error. However, the wording is not merely a technical problem.  The wording is apparently important to you.  But why?  Could it be that the wording was needed in order to satisfy individuals or groups or interests that demanded this wording?  Was it meant as an assurance that BDS would not demand the return of all lands stolen from Palestinians but only those lands that were stolen outside the Green Line? If this is the case, it would explain why many “soft” Zionists, who want to maintain a Jewish state but give back the West Bank, now participate in BDS, but only against institutions that support the Israeli presence in the West Bank. In fact, that is the current priority of the movement, with little or no Boycott, Divestment or Sanctions aimed at institutions that deny equal rights to Palestinian citizens of Israel or the Right of Return to Palestinians in the shatat (“diaspora”). Is this a coincidence or is BDS headed in a different direction than its origins would indicate?  Is it no longer a Palestinian movement, but rather a “soft” Zionist movement? Obviously, people join movements for different reasons, and if Zionists want to boycott organizations that do business with Israel – even if only in the West Bank – their contribution is welcome. However, it is quite another matter to effectively turn over the reins of the movement to them or to accommodate them by changing the wording of the mission statement.  A Palestinian movement that welcomes Zionists that have limited objectives is quite different from a Zionist movement that wants to limit its mission but accepts Palestinians that have wider goals. Is that what is going on?  Perhaps not.  Perhaps my concerns are exaggerated.  But in that case, please dispel all doubt by removing the four words. Paul Larudee

Whose side is Abbas on really?

BDS Activists Infuriated by Abbas Rejection of Boycotts of Israel A statement by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejecting a boycott of Israel has infuriated Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) leaders.

“No, we do not support the boycott of Israel,” Abbas told South African reporters Dec. 9, The Star reported. “But we ask everyone to boycott the products of the settlements. Because the settlements are in our territories. It is illegal,” Abbas added.

Abbas’s comments conflict “with the Palestinian national consensus that has strongl

y supported BDS against Israel since 2005,” BDS movement co-founder Omar Barghouti told Electronic Intifada.

Barghouti said Abbas does not speak for the Palestinian people.

“There is no Palestinian political party, trade union, NGO network or mass organization that does not strongly support BDS,” he said. “Any Palestinian official who lacks a democratic mandate and any real public support, therefore, cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people when it comes to deciding our strategies of resistance to Israel’s regime of occupation, colonization and apartheid.”



Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

The Jewish hate-site latest target is veteran rocker Roger Waters.  His crime? He has told the truth about Jewish power and has compared Israel with Nazi Germany. Specifically, in a recent interview Waters dared to refer to the mighty Jewish Lobby and its impact silencing opposition to the Jewish State.
It goes without saying that the Israelis and their tribal operators are not happy with Waters exercising his freedom to think and to speak but I have a feeling that BDS movement, now totally dominated by liberal Zionists and funded by George Soros’ Open Society, is also slightly embarrassed by Waters’ frankness.
In the last few years, BDS Movement has invested a lot of energy concealing the truth regarding the Jewish State and curtailing any criticism of it. So, I ask myself, will Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad and  Omar Barghouti, once again bow to Jewish pressure and call for the disavowal of the Pink Floyd hero? Will Abunimah advise Waters that whenever he wants to say the J word, he should instead say ‘Zionist’. Let’s hope not.
Yet, one question remains: How is it possible that a rocker and a jazz artist are exploring those truths that prominent Palestinian activists are not even brave enough to contemplate? I guess that as long as activism is in a state of utter paralysis, the search for beauty is the only true liberation.
End Days After Defending Star of David Pig, Roger Waters Laments ‘Power’ of ‘Jewish Lobby,’ Compares Israeli Policy to Nazis

Just days after defending his use of an inflatable pig emblazoned with a Star of David as a concert prop, rock star Roger Waters lamented the “power” of “the Jewish lobby,” and compared Israeli government policy to that of the Nazis, in an interview with CounterPunch magazine.
In the interview conducted by anti-Israel activist, Frank Barat, the former Pink Floyd bassist was frank about his opinions on Jews and Israel.
Asked why he was the only high profile celebrity to have joined the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, Waters explained that it was because people fear “the Jewish lobby.”
“This has been a very hard sell particularly where I live in the United States of America,” he said. “The Jewish lobby is extraordinary powerful here and particularly in the industry that I work in, the music industry and in rock’n roll as they say. I promise you, naming no names, I’ve spoken to people who are terrified that if they stand shoulder to shoulder with me they are going to get f*****.”
Accusing Israel of all manner of heinous crimes, Waters went on to draw parallels between Israeli policy and Nazi genocide.
“The situation in Israel/Palestine, with the occupation, the ethnic cleansing and the systematic racist apartheid Israeli regime is unacceptable,” he said.
Referring to Israel’s “right wing rabbinate,” Waters said “they believe that everybody that is not a Jew is only on earth to serve them and they believe that the Indigenous people of the region that they kicked off the land in 1948 and have continued to kick off the land ever since are sub-human. The parallels with what went on in the 30’s in Germany are so crushingly obvious that it doesn’t surprise me that the movement that both you and I are involved in is growing every day.”
Waters also described Israel’s concern over Iran’s nuclear program as a “diversionary tactic,” and claimed that Israel has never desired to make peace with the Arabs. “They’ve always had the Ben Gurion agenda of kicking all the Arabs out of the country and becoming greater Israel,” he said.
Waters said that he had been invited to preform in Israel by a top Israeli promoter, and admitted to having sent a letter to pop icon, Cindy Lauper, requesting that she cancel an upcoming performance in Israel.
“You know that Shuki Weiss (preeminent Israeli promoter) was offering me a hundred thousand people at hundred dollars a ticket a few months ago to come and play in Tel Aviv! ‘Hang on, that’s 10 million dollars’, how could they offer it to me?! And I thought Shuki are you f****** deaf or just dumb?! I am part of the BDS movement, I’m not going anywhere in Israel, for any money, all I would be doing would be legitimizing the policies of the government,” he said.
In July this year, Waters caused a stir when it was revealed that an inflatable pig released as a concert prop at his performances featured a Star of David. At the time, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights group, described Waters as “an open hater of Jews.”
Responding to his latest remarks, Rabbi Cooper again described Waters as a “bigot.”
“We raised the alarm when Waters put a Star of David on a pig during his European tour. Now with this interview he confirms his status as one of the most virulent haters of the Jewish state. Apartheid, racist, murderers compared to Nazis,” Cooper said in an email to The Algemeiner.
“The Wiesenthal Center calls on his peers in the entertainment world to condemn him and to show through their continued visits to Israel that they share our contempt for this bigot,” he added.
Last week, following the conclusion of his three-year world tour for “The Wall,” Waters addressed the criticism he had faced over the use of the Star of David pig at his concerts.
“I worry about it every day. It’s a huge concern to me that I would be considered to be a bully,” Waters said about the accusations.
“Since then, because of the complaints from some of the Jewish community, we’ve added a crucifix and star-crescent,” he added.
In August, Waters’ active promotion of the anti-Israel boycott promoted a sharp response from Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli whose image was being used in his concert performances.
“Roger Waters, you should remove my picture from videos at your concerts. If you’re going to boycott, then go all the way,” she tweeted.
According to the United States Department of State, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” is considered anti-Semitic.


The last born of Omar al Barghouthi of BDS after promoting the LGBT rights and link them to Palestinian rights is even more mind blowing . Mister Barghouthi who has always been trying to solve the Palestinian problem from the Israeli point of view, and who has lately approved of the legitimacy of the state of Israel, is trying now to work around this shameful recognition- that was done without consulting the Palestinian endorsers of BDS- by promoting a new theory that seeks to rehabilitate Zionists after BDS recognized their usurping state.

The alien theory of Barghouthi speaks about the indigenization of colonialists meaning that the Palestinians will consider the Zionist settlers as indigenous like them after the settlers give up their colonial oppression and subjugation policies and become qualified for indigenization .

By indigenizing the Zionist settlers and giving them indigenous rights the Palestinians would have opted for what Barghouthi calls “ethical” decolonization versus its counterpart the “unethical decolonization “. No doubt that the unethical decolonization meant by Barghouthi would be the armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine . This last option is the enemy number one to Barghouthi and to Israelis at the same time, while the so called “ethical” decolonization will allow the Israelis to play it safe and be recognized as legitimate indigenous people by Palestinians themselves with equal rights in the Palestinian land on condition that they give up their colonial policy.

From where did Barghouthi get this theory we don’t know, and how would the colonial Zionist settlers give up their colonial privileges and become indigenous, we don’t know, and when did it happen that colonialists in any place on the earth gave up their colonial rights to become indigenous ? This has never happened and will never happen and Israel has become more and more immersed in colonization and violations and abuses of all sorts and oppressive policies regarding Palestinians that were never witnessed before.

If Israelis wanted an indigenous status – in the first place- they could have acquired it long ago by accepting to live side by side with the Palestinians without usurping their land and chasing them out of their homes and slaughtering them on every turn.

According to Barghouthi, Palestinians are to meet all these atrocities by “ ethical decolonization “ , and is this supposed to solve the Palestinian problem .The truth is that this is taking the Palestinians for another ride to nowhere, far from the armed struggle, to further recognition and normalization and Palestinian concessions. Shame on such theories and shame on Barghouthi of BDS who is not done yet with milking the Palestinian Cow of the Palestinian Cause for the sake of Israel that he is inflicting on Palestinians this kind of behavior that pacifies with Israel and feeds the predator with more innocent victims . This activism is not Palestinian activism in any way , this is deep Israeli infiltration of Palestinian activism and deep indulgence in anti Palestinian policies for the benefit of Israel and a trip away from the armed Palestinian struggle financed by Soros and the European Union..

BDS: Can you spot the difference?

By Paul

Here’s a critical section from the BDS website (Freedom, justice, equality) as it used to be:
These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

  1.  Ending its occupation and colonization ofall Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
  2. ……
  3. …….
    Check it here:

And here’s the same critical section from the BDS website (Freedom, justice, equality) as it is now:

These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
  2. …..
  3. …..

Check it here:

Can you spot the difference?
If you’d like to discuss any of this with BDS you can contact them here:

Kosher PSC Exposed Once Again!

Kosher PSC Exposed Once Again!

DateFriday, August 30, 2013 at 3:49PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

A few days ago one of my readers posted a comment by me on PSC York’ website. It was referring to BBC’s censorship of Nigel Kennedy Apartheid comments .

Gilad Atzmon’s comment (originally published here ):

“The BBC was reportedly set to cut out remarks about apartheid in Israel made by world famous violinist  Nigel Kennedy two weeks ago at the Proms Music Festival. Would the BBC leave Kennedy’s comment in, no one would have noticed it. But now, we are all paying attention to Kennedy’s observation.  But we also learn a crucial lesson about Jewish power in Britain in general and within the BBC in particular!”

However, within a short while the message was removed by PSC York’s local commissar.  The reasoning is given below.

It seems as if the UK PSC is operating shamelessly  as an extended progressive synagogue. Different kinds of politically identified Jewish groups (A.K.A AZZ) are deciding who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’. I can’t decide whether this is amusing or tragic, yet one thing is clear, it has nothing to do with open discourse, freedom of thought or pluralism of any sort. It is a dead end. 

PSC Message…..
Gilad Atzmon’s remarks in this article are openly anti semitic. The whole of the movement, including the Palestinian National Boycott Committee asked us to distance ourselves from anti semitism. Omar Bargouti made an impassioned call at the AGM of PSC two years explaining the immense harm that is done to the Palestinian cause by anti semitic racism. All the pro boycott Jewish organisations, like Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and the International Jewish anti Zionist network have asked us not to work with Atzmon. If you want the background read Tony Greensteins blog on Atzmon, he has a long archive of material. It was decided some years ago that in support of the Palestinian BNCC (sic) call, we would not reproduce Atzmon’s articles, so please do not post his stuff again. I had not noticed it until I got two complaints this morning Thanks,’ PSC York

The Undefined Purpose Of BDS


Let’s read thoroughly the Arabic BDS text which is the original text as it was written in year 2005 . The text says literally that Israel should submit to the International Law and this in ::

1-Ending the occupation and colonization of ALL Arab land and dismantling the wall.
2-Recognizing the fundamental right of Arab Palestinian citizens to full equality
3-Respecting , protecting and promoting the right of the Palestinian Refugees to return home as stipulated in UN resolutions

This is the original version which is a confusing version because it gives the impression that Israel is to withdraw from all Arab land – and if it were to withdraw from all Arab land to where would it withdraw ? to the sea ? to Europe ? -while in fact what is meant is that it will withdraw from certain Arab territories probably those that will be decided upon by the world order or the peace talks .

 The territories to be evacuated turned out to be the lands occupied in 67 – but if withdrawing from all Arab land was meant in the first place then also the 2nd and 3rd amendment would be irrelevant .

This means that the BDS is not a serious movement with precise goals and objectives and the Recognition of Israel within its 1948 borders goes back to the foundation of the BDS movement in 2005 because the withdrawal from the 67 occupied land that showed up 8 years later in the English version was already implicit in the original version even if not clearly expressed . What remains to be known is why BDS has chosen to be explicit about this matter in the version addressed to its foreign audience at this time precisely, while the Arabic text retained its original confusing statement of ending occupation of all Arab land .
BDS had nothing precise in its mind , no position and no ideology which is quite surprising for a liberating movement that wants to retrieve Palestinians’ rights .BDS is waiting for others to determine their position and then take a stand accordingly . For this BDS cannot lead nor speak for the Palestinian Cause because it has no authority or independent position .

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!

Regarding the proposed al-Awda withdrawal of endorsement from BDS

Below is a message that I posted to the al-Awda USA listserve concerning a proposed al-Awda withdrawal of its endorsement from the statement currently appearing on the BDS website of the BNC, which is not the same statement that it originally signed. Since receiving wider distribution, my message has been misinterpreted and criticised for statements and assertions that were neither made nor intended. Furthermore, since my motives for making the statement have been questioned, as well, I will preface the message with some explanation.

  • I have never criticised but rather have encouraged the practice of, and a movement for, boycott, divestment and sanction against Israel. Although some do not wish to apply BDS to all things Israeli, I do not wish to discourage them from their partial application of BDS, because all forms of BDS are helpful.
  • I do not wish to cause a split within the movement, nor tell Palestinians what should or should not be their objective or their means. Not all Palestinians agree about such matters, and I consider my role to be that of solidarity with all Palestinians, regardless of their political beliefs or affiliations. I am only responsible for my own beliefs and actions.
  • I am in pursuit – as we all are – of truth and justice, although our interpretations of such may be different and our commitment varying. However, I do not abide the avoidance of truth for the sake of expediency, nor hypocrisy or inconsistency with respect to principle. Sadly, some would rather apply principle only when it serves their purpose and abandon it when it is no longer convenient. I believe that the truth sets us free, but that freedom is not gained without sacrifice. However, freedom is an illusion without justice, and no one is free until we all are free. Similarly, justice cannot be gained for some at the cost of injustice to others. This is why none of us should accept a Jewish state, least of all Jews.
  • My message was addressed to al-Awda members with respect to al-Awda endorsement of a particular BDS Campaign referenced in the message, and not the idea of a BDS movement nor the BDS tactics and actions that have been applied with success on many occasions. My reference point for what may or may not be acceptable in that context are the al-Awda USA principles of unity (with which I happen to agree).
  • This message is specifically addressed to the practice of retroactively revising a statement after it has been endorsed, without the consent of the endorsers. Nothing more. Nothing less. This is the only matter that should be considered. If Al-Awda and other signatories wish to accept the revision or to opt out, that is their business. However, they must be given the choice and an approval procedure must be followed. Please. That is all that I am saying. All the rest is analysis.
  • I tried for more than two months prior to this message to gather information and to get questions answered through more private inquiries. A more public message was a last resort.

I hope we can keep these matters in perspective

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: [AL-AWDA] Proposal for al-Awda to withdraw its endorsement from BDS

Dear friends,

It is with great sadness that I must propose withdrawal of al-Awda endorsement from the BDS Campaign led by the BNC until the change in its mission statement has been corrected and until a public explanation is provided for the reasons for the change as well as the procedure by which the change was implemented. A more transparent public explanation of BNC finances is also recommended.

Obviously, this is not a proposal to stop boycott, divestment and sanctions. However, BDS actions and practices do not require endorsement of a particular movement. Everything that undermines the racist Zionist state deserves our support. Nevertheless, under no circumstances can we support any statement or action that legitimates such a state, which is the problem with the BNC-led BDS Campaign.

As I reported on July 10, the original BDS mission statement reads:

“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall”
In fact, it still reads that way on one part of the website: Unfortunately, that part of the website is historical, and reports what the original mission statement was when it was issued in 2005 (when al-Awda endorsed it), and not what it is today, which is found at, which reads:
“1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall” (emphasis added)

When did this wording change? By what procedure was it amended? Were endorsers like al-Awda consulted or even notified about the change? What was the reason for the change?

1. When did the wording change?

Sorry, but I have no idea about this, and I doubt that anyone else on this list does, either. This is problematic. How can a change of this magnitude be made without the permission of its endorsers? How can endorsers be made to say something that they never endorsed? This is deception at its worst.

2. By what procedure was the statement amended?

One would think that such a change would require a proposal to and ratification by the governing committee of the BNC. However, there is no evidence that such a procedure was observed. Lacking evidence to the contrary, we must conclude that it was amended unilaterally by someone with control over the website.

3. Were endorsers like al-Awda consulted or even notified about the change?

Again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that the change in language was introduced in the most surreptitious way possible, so as to avoid notice. One is reminded of the way the British territory of Gibraltar was enlarged by moving the boundary stones at night.

4. What was the reason for the change?

This is the most troubling part of the problem. A clue may be found in the following video, posted by Gilad Atzmon:

Another clue comes from BDS Campaign founder Omar Barghouti’s book, Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights. In the introduction, Barghouti describes the goal as “ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands [occupied in 1967] and dismantling the wall” (p. 6). On page 49, Barghouti says that “BDS calls for ending Israel’s 1967 military occupation of Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and other Arab territories in Lebanon and Syria.”

Obviously, Omar Barghouti is entitled to his views. Perhaps he is genuinely convinced that the ‘Zionist colonization’ of ‘all Arab Land’ applies only to land invaded in June 1967. However, is he the one behind the unauthorized changes in the BDS mission statement? This is a question that needs to be answered, and I believe that the similarities between his statements and the amendment of the BDS mission statement justify the asking of that question without prejudice to the possibility that a satisfactory explanation might exist. Justice must presume innocence until proven otherwise.
Finally, according to Gilad Atzmon, some Zionist right wing sources name George Soros and his Open Society Institute as helping to fund BDS and some of its member organizations. We know that Soros is a “soft” Zionist and wants to preserve a Jewish state. Is his funding or that of any other funding organizations a reason for the change in the mission statement? A full disclosure of funding sources and amounts, as well as any and all conditions of funding is needed. In addition, the use of those funds, including line item amounts, is needed in order to demonstrate accountability.
I again wish to express my sorrow at bringing these matters to your attention. I hope that my concerns are unjustified. However, I also hope that you will agree that this is an issue that must be addressed.
Paul Larudee

Further to this, below is the full current mission statement on the website. Please note that it claims that “The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements” (including al-Awda). The fact is that none of these organizations endorsed the statement as revised, but rather the original statement, without the amendment.

What, then is the meaning of item three in the mission statement? It appears to be a statement of the Right of Return, but where exactly are the refugees going to return if ending the occupation and colonization applies only to territories occupied in June, 1967?

This is clearly an accommodation to Zionists who want to be part of the BDS movement (or, more accurately, want to control it). Fine. Let them have their movement, but let the organizations that do not agree to this amendment opt out of it, in which case all of the endorsers should be contacted and allowed to make their own choice. However, under no circumstances should false claims be made that more than 170 groups endorsed a statement that they plainly did not. 

  1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
  2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
  3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

The BDS call was endorsed by over 170 Palestinian political parties, organizations, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the OPT, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

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: