Reported by Gilad Atzmon
The BBC reported yesterday that London based newspaper The Jewish Chronicle has apologised to readers who complained after it ran an advert for the Disasters Emergency Committee's Gaza crisis appeal (DEC).
The weekly newspaper said running the advert was "meant as a purely humanitarian gesture".
When it launched the appeal, the DEC said the latest conflict had made half a million people in Gaza homeless and warned of a "humanitarian emergency".
After the advert featured in this week's Jewish Chronicle (JC), a Facebook page was set up calling on Jewish readers to boycott the title until it issued a "full apology".
It accused the newspaper of "ignoring the sensitivity of this conflict which is having a day to day impact and effect on the Jewish community here".
A message posted on the papers own Facebook page pointed out that the advert was "not an expression of the JC's view".
It added: "We have received complaints from readers angry at the decision. We apologise for the upset caused."
Once involved with Palestinian Solidarity you have to accept that Jews are special and so is their suffering; Jews are like no other people, their Holocaust is like no other genocide and anti Semitism, is the most vile form of racism the world has ever known and so on and so forth.
But when it comes to the Palestinians, the exact opposite is the case. For some reason we are expected to believe that the Palestinians are not special at all - they are just like everyone else. Palestinians have not been subject to a unique, racist, nationalist and expansionist Jewish nationalist movement, instead, we must all agree that, just like the Indians and the Africans, the Palestinian ordeal results from run-of-the-mill 19th century colonialism – just more of the same old boring Apartheid.
So, Jews, Zionists and Israelis are exceptional, like no one else, while Palestinians are always somehow, ordinary, always part of some greater political narrative, always just like everyone else. Their suffering is never due to the particularity of Jewish nationalism, or Jewish racism, or even AIPAC dominating USA foreign policy no, the Palestinian is always a victim of a dull, banal dynamic – general, abstract and totally lacking in particularity.
This raises some serious questions.
Can you think of any other liberation or solidarity movement that prides itself in being boring, ordinary and dull? Can you think of any other solidarity movement that downgrades its subject into just one more meaningless exhibit in a museum of materialist historical happenings? I don’t think so! Did the black South Africans see themselves as being like everyone else? Did Martin Luther King believe his brothers and sisters to be inherently undistinguishable?
Haaretz reported today that “Britain's next Jewish prime minister says he is a Zionist” how surprising. His brother David, was listed by an Israeli official website as an ‘Israeli propaganda (Hasbarah) Author’. Reading Haaretz today confirms that 'Red Ed' changed his mind, he is now 'Blue & White'. a genuine Zionist Jew. I guess that the British Labour is, once again, an Israeli occupied territory.
Read for yourself:
Labor Party leader Ed Miliband establishes his pro-Israel credentials like never before by stating that while he doesn't always agree with its government, he is 'intolerant of those who question Israel's right to exist.'
The leader of the British Labor Party and the man who may well become the United Kingdom's first Jewish prime minister put a lot of minds at rest on Thursday when he said that he is a Zionist.
Ed Miliband may be the son of Jewish Holocaust refugees but he has never been considered a son of the local Jewish community. His Marxist parents gave him a resolutely atheist upbringing, and he never went through any of the typical rites of passage of British Jews; he didn't even have a Bar-Mitzvah. His leftist credential and a couple of critical remarks on Israel's operations in Gaza have rendered him suspect until recently. In recent months, however, he has been signaling a greater willingness to engage with the Jewish community – this included a personal essay on his Jewishness in the New Statesman weekly, mentions of his religious roots in his main policy speech at Labor's annual conference, closed meetings with community leaders and on Thursday night, the first open dialogue between the leader of the opposition and a Jewish audience.
The Dictator-A Film Review by Gilad Atzmon
On the face of it, Baron Cohen’s The Dictator is a horrid film. It is vulgar, it isn’t funny and if it has five good jokes in it, they appear in the two minute official trailer. In short, save your time and money – unless of course, you are interested in Jewish identity politics and neurosis.
Similar to Cohen’s previous work, The Dictator is, once again, a glimpse into Cohen’s own tribal morbidity. After all, the person and the spirit behind this embarrassing comedy is a proud self-loving character who never misses an opportunity to express his intimate affinity to his people, their unique comic talent and their beloved Jewish state. But let’s face it, Cohen isn’t alone, after all, he has created The Dictator together with a Hollywood studio. So, it’s reasonable to say that what we see here is just one more Hollywood-orchestrated effort to vilify the Arab, the Muslim and the Orient.
I guess that Arab rulers, regimes and politics are an ideal subject for a satirical take, still, one may wonder what exactly does Sacha Baron Cohen know about the Arab World? As far as the film can tell, not much. Instead, Cohen projects his own Zionist and tribal symptoms onto the people of Arabia and their leaders.
In the film, Cohen plays General Hafez Aladeen, the Arab ruler of the oil-rich North African rogue state Wadiya. On the face of it, he is the satirical version of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, but in reality, Aladeen’s actions are no less than a vast amplification of the crimes committed by Israel and its war criminals such as Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni.
Apparently, dogs in California have a new source of entertainment: a TV channel run by a former Israeli Army propagandist. The Arab Digest reported today that an Israeli company launched a new TV Channel for Dogs in San Diego; the Executive chairman, Yossi Uzrad, was executive producer of the Channel 2 news company and the head of the news desk at the IDF radio station in Israel. In a nutshell, an Israeli army propagandist is running a Dog's TV channel. The Arab Digest rightly wonders whether it is safe to let America’s dogs to be subject to an Israeli propaganda channel. The show may lead some dogs to invade their respective homes and expel their human family members from their doggy promised land.
By Gilad Atzmon
2nd part of two – In this part I explore the misleading role of Jewish politics (both Zionist and anti Zionist) within the 'anti racist' campaign.
To read the 1st part click here.
Racism is a big word with some very bad connotations. Being accused of racism is one of the most hurtful and potentially damaging labels around. And yet, how many ‘racists’ really think in ‘biological determinist’ terms? How many ‘racists’ out there really think in terms of ‘genes,’ or even ‘skin colour’? I guess not that many.
While acknowledging that racism had a significant cultural, and politically lethal impact between the late 19th century and the middle of the last century, in today’s politics, the word ‘racism’ is often misused, mistakenly used, or in some cases, consciously used to mislead and even to silence.
Though discrimination against minority groups is unfortunately common and totally unacceptable, it is not necessarily always motivated by crude racism. Islamophobia, for instance, is commonly regarded as a contemporary manifestation of racism but I would challenge such an understanding. Islamophobia, I contend, is not driven by racism, but rather, it is actually a crude symptom of intolerance -- xenophobia manifested as hatred, bigotry and discrimination. My English Muslim convert friends are often subjected to abuse by Jewish campaigners (both Zionist and ‘anti’ Zionists) and the English Defence League -- but not because of their ‘genes’, ‘biology’ or the colour of their skin, but rather because they are ‘different’; because they challenge Western value system and because they oppose Israel and its lobbies. Clearly, they are perceived by some as a 'public enemy' but that reaction cannot always be understood solely as ‘racism’ per se.
Similarly, it is beyond doubt that it is not easy to be black in ‘multi cultural’ Britain. Being a jazz musician I see first hand how my black friends are often treated in this country and I see plenty of evidence of institutional anti-black bigotry. I read about black youngsters being stopped and searched by police between one to four times a day. This is unacceptable and clear evidence of discrimination.
But is this really always about racism? Is it driven solely by ‘biological determinism’? Is it really about ‘genes’, ‘blood’ or ‘skin colour’? This is indeed an open question and obviously I would not rule out the possibility of anti- black (biological) racism. However, I tend to believe that in contemporary multi ethnic societies, most cases of anti-black bigotry and discrimination are various manifestations of deep, thuggish xenophobic feelings mixed with some examples of deep, and sinister cultural intolerance. In other words, often enough, the contemporary bigot is not concerned at all with biological matters but rather with social constructs and culturally driven symbolism(1). This is surely a matter of serious concern, and in some case it is driven by murderous inclinations and it must be dealt with, but it isn’t necessarily (biological) racism per se.
1st part of two – In this paper and the one to follow, I expose the misleading aspect that is, unfortunately, inherent to some 'anti' racist ideologies. I will elaborate on the role of anti racism in maintaing both Zionism and the Left discourse.
“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” ― Anaïs Nin
It doesn’t take a genius to see that people who are identified as Zionist and Jews are, somehow, over represented in many blunders in today’s world affairs. The pro-war, Neocon think-tanks were overwhelmingly saturated with Zionist Jews, and the ‘moral interventionist’ advocates within the media are also largely Zionist Jews. The ‘brains’ behind the so-called Bush doctrine i.e. The ‘War Against Terror’, were Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, and if that were not enough, at the heart of the financial turmoil we also find Jewish persons, and financial institutions that are clearly recognizable as Jewish – such as the Lehman Brother, Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, Bernie Madoff, and many others.
Here one must ask an obvious question – why should any Jew anywhere in the world be concerned in any way with these facts? Why should any Jewish person be concerned with actions or ideas that he or she probably has nothing to do with? Why should my Jewish neighbour, also subject to the financial turmoil and with no connection whatsoever with Madoff, Wolfowitz, David Aaronovitch or Lord ‘cash point’ Levy, be at all concerned with current financial or imperial blunders for which he has no responsibility? Why should my Jewish musician friends who have no ties to Israel, AIPAC, CFI, CST, Nick Cohen or Alan Greenspan feel guilty for crimes or actions taken by others just because they also happen to be Jewish? Would a Frenchman or an Irishman in America feel threatened or potentially discriminated against because of revelations that a few of their expatriates had been involved in a major colossal scandal?
So, the question I raise here is a simple one: why should any Jew feel guilty for crimes that are committed by other people – people he or she does not know and is not affiliated with? And the answer is equally simple – Jewish individuals have no reason to assume responsibility for actions committed by other Jews. But the truth of the matter is, that many Jews are extremely concerned about the current blunders: some feel guilty, and many – potentially at least – feel threatened. I would say that such a reaction merits our attention.
Amongst my other sins, I regularly monitor the Jewish media, and it is obvious to me that Jewish institutions are put on alert by any scandal that is even mildly associated with Jewish protagonists or institutions. Jewish media outlets give the impression that every blunder associated with a Jew is highly likely to turn itself into a wave of vile anti-semitism.
We are left to wonder then whether the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is actually justified, or whether it is simply driven by a ‘fantasy of destruction’.
By Gilad Atzmon
“Dershowitz is not only a remarkable liar and slanderer, but also an extreme opponent of elementary civil rights” Noam Chomsky
The following is an analytical yet amusing glimpse into the deceitful and psychological nature of Zionist propaganda as manifested by arch Zionist Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz wrote last week, “in a recent post, Atzmon said that he would be willing to play alongside David Duke. What a duet!”
This little insignificant anecdote brought a smile to my face because in my text I was actually positively considering joining a new healing musical adventure along together with Alan Dershowitz on tuba and David Duke on trumpet.
Here are my words, “I really do not understand why Alan Dershowitz believes himself to be morally superior to Duke. Dershowitz is a Zionist Jewish supremacist, he is a world leading advocate of a racist and expansionist ideology, namely Zionism. And yet, I wouldn’t say NO to an invitation for a musical gathering along together with Dershowitz on tuba and Duke playing the trumpet, just because I believe that music brings people together.”
The text is plainly clear. There is no room for misinterpretation. It was not a ‘duet’ which I was willing to join but actually a ‘trio’ that would include Alan Dershowitz alongside David Duke. Dershowitz lied again. Instead of just politely declining and admitting that he is ‘no good’ on tuba, he followed once again his falsehearted tactics-first he put words in my mouth and then interpreted the words he himself invented. “But that's exactly where Atzmon belongs,” wrote Dershowitz - “in the company of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, homophobes, misogynists, sexists and other bigots.”
If Dershowitz was an intellectual, which he isn’t or an artist which he certainly isn’t, one could have argued that this kind of behaviour suggests that the elder Zionist may live in a cute phantasmic solipsistic universe. If Dershowitz wasn’t aware of his deceitful actions, he could have been classified as a psychopath. But I actually, tend to believe that there is a certain level of awareness behind Dershowitz actions. And the conclusion is, indeed, very concerning, we are dealing with an inherently dishonest person, a ‘remarkable liar’, as Noam Chomsky describes him along together many other intellectual and humanists who have reached the same conclusion.
But why is he lying? Why is he doing it so often? Can he get away with it? Clearly not anymore, yet he wouldn’t stop. At this stage he cannot stop.
Last week, as Jewish Lobbies continue to invest enormous efforts in dictating and imposing a rigid and unquestionable Holocaust narrative, Israeli Haaretz published a short, succinct and courageous report challenging the validity of the Wannsee Conference as proof of the Nazi ‘final solution’.
Just ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, the Israeli paper reported that Dr. Norbert Kampe (63), director of the "Wannsee Conference" Memorial Centre in Berlin, has challenged some of the most widely-accepted historical ‘facts’ associated with the conference and its meaning.
Jewish Holocaust scholars have always insisted that the master plan for the Nazi Judeocide was conceived at the Wannsee Conference but Dr. Kampe is quoted as saying that the conference dealt only with “operational matters” instead of being a platform of any form of “decision making”. To prove his point, Kampe pointed to the fact that Hitler and his ministers were not present at the conference. Furthermore, he says, "At the time, January 1942, there was no organized plan for extermination camps."
And yet, Haaretz admits, “Make no mistake. Kampe is not anti-Semitic. Certainly not a Holocaust denier. On the contrary. As expected of a professional historian, he studied countless relevant texts, documents and testimonies on the particular event…His conclusion is the direct outcome of an educated analysis of written material in his possession.”
So courageously, a Hebrew paper praises Kampe and his “fascinating historical lesson” and also acknowledges that the Israeli Ministry of Education lacks the capacity to engage in any form of informed Holocaust debate. Haaretz clearly admits that
“to this day no one knows with complete certainty and confidence what exactly happened on 20 January 1942, in this pretty villa in the wealthy suburb of Berlin.”
In May 2010, all 189 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – including Iran – tacitly agreed to a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and called for a conference in 2012 in Finland. But Israel has refused to support a nuclear weapons-free zone for the region, reluctant to give up its own. Israel also is not a signatory to the NPT. These facts have arguably destabilized the region, leaving open the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
Antiwar.com reported today that former Saudi intelligence chief has called for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Prince Turki Al Faisal urged the five permanent U.N. Security Council members to guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for Mideast countries that agree to a nuclear weapons-free zone and impose sanctions on countries that develop or maintain nuclear weapons.
Though it is clear that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would certainly be a concern to Saudi Arabia, it also must be mentioned that the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration, and the latest IAEA report is that Iran’s enrichment is so far civilian in nature.
It seems as if Israel and its relentless lobbies are the biggest threat to world peace.
By Gilad Atzmon
This last weekend brought with it some vile manifestations of Jewish politics in its most horrific forms.
United Against the Goyim
In the USA, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.
Actually, it wasn’t just Obama whom Adler suggested to eliminate, the Atlanta Jewish Times listed three lethal options to help Israel counter Iran’s nuclear capability. The first, to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to assassinate the current American president.
Devastatingly, Adler’s murderous attitude towards politics is wholly consistent with some Biblical and Talmudic anti-gentile teaching. It recalls clearly certain Old Testament genocidal verses such as Leviticus 26:7-8:
‘You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.’
It is also consistent with the appalling way in which Palestinians are abused by the Jewish State. But it is also consistent with the Jewish cultural wrath towards the dissenting Jesus and towards dissent in general. May I remind readers that the word Yeshu – Jesus in Hebrew – is the abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase
“may his name and memory be blotted out”.
Without comparing president Obama to Jesus, Adler’s homicidal inclination is somewhat similar. Seemingly, some Jews have yet to forgive Jesus – nor President Obama. .
Could it be that Zionist-caricature Alan Dershowitz has resorted to comedy as he desperately tries to win his battle against me and my book? What else could explain this intellectually retarded Zionist mouthpiece’s repetition of the same old lies? A few years ago Norman Finkelstein established that Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but now Dershowitz extends this infamous title - Now, he’s actually plagiarising his own phantasmic fibs!
Just a week before Hanukah, fancying himself as a bit of a music critic, Dershowitz described me as an ‘obscure saxophonist’. This was amusing enough, but yesterday Dershowitz elaborated on his notion of ‘obscurity’. In an embarrassingly unimaginative and vindictive article he called Chicago University Professor of Philosophy Brian Leiter a “relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence”. For a native English speaker (and a Harvard Professor) Dershowitz sure has a limited English vocabulary.
Professor Leiter’s crime was obvious enough: he stood up for freedom of expression and open debate. He defended Professor John Mearsheimer who has endorsed ‘The Wandering Who’ and refused to bow to vile and relentless Zionist pressure to withdraw his praise for the book.
Professor John Mearsheimer is subject to a Zionist-trans-Atlantic-attack for supporting my latest book The Wandering Who.
Earlier this year John Mearsheimer, the highly respected international relations theorist and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, wrote the following preliminary front matter for my book:
‘Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their 'Jewishness.' Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.’
It seems as if the Zio-cons on both sides of the pond are now in a state of panic -- In an obviously orchestrated attack, the Zionist mouthpiece The Jewish Chronicle of London, the Islamophobic Award winning ‘Harry’s Place’ and the ex-Israeli concentration camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg* , all launched a typical Hasbara smear & intimidation campaign, in which they labeled both Professor Mearsheimer and myself anti Semites. I was also called a ‘neo Nazi’, a ‘Hitler apologist,’ a ‘Holocaust denier’ and a ‘hatemonger’.
To be honest, it is somewhat amusing that an ex concentration camp guard like Goldberg should label me a ‘Hitler apologist’ or a ‘Holocaust denier’: after all, since Goldberg is an ardent pro-war Zionist who openly and enthusiastically supports a Jews-only, racist, expansionist state, it is clear that he is actually the one who is an advocate of a distinctly Nazi-like ideology and practice.
This film is dedicated to the so-called Jewish 'anti' Zionists who were harassing and detracting us ahead of the Freiburg Conference ('Palestine, Israel and Germany - Boundaries of Open Discussion). Ideally, we would like to see many Jews contributing to the discourse rather than attempting to dismantle it. However, we will prevail!!!
Ignoramus ambassador Gould should know that putting a war criminal behind bars is not a political matter, but an ethical necessity.
(A talk given at the 'Palestine, Israel, Germany- The Boundaries of Open Discussion Conference’, Freiburg 11th September 2011)
Dear ladies and gentlemen.
I will begin my talk with an unusual confession. Though I was born in Israel, in the first thirty years of my life I did not know much about the Nakba, the brutal and racially driven ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population in 1948 by the newly born Israeli State. My peers and myself knew about a single massacre, namely, Deir Yassin but we were not at all familiar with the vast scale of atrocities committed by our grandparents. We believed that the Palestinians had voluntarily fled. We were told that they had run away and we did not find any reason to doubt that this had indeed been the case.
Let me tell you that in all my years in Israel, I have never heard the word Nakba spoken. This may sound pathetic, or even absurd to you -- but what about you? Shouldn’t you also ask yourself -- when was the first time you heard the word Nakba? Perhaps you can also try to recall when this word settled comfortably into your lexicon. Let me help you here -- I have carried out a little research amongst my European and American Palestinian solidarity friends, and most of them had only heard the word Nakba for the first time, just a few short years ago, whilst others admitted that they had only started to use the word themselves three or four years ago.
But isn’t that a slightly strange state of affairs? After all, the Nakba took place more than six decades ago. How is it that only recently it found its way into our symbolic order?
Israel’s leading news outlet Ynet, published yesterday a detailed comparison between Israel’s and Turkey’s military capacity - it outlines the size of the air force, navy, ground forces in the respective countries. “Turkey”, it says, “posses much bigger navy but our air force is larger.’
I guess that this is what one would expect from Israel, a morbid collective driven by war enthusiasm and some bizarre craving for bloody conflict.
The Daily Mail reported this week that young Paul Donnachie was found to have acted in a racially aggravated manner when he defiled an Israeli flag in a supposed political protest.
“A judge has ruled that a St Andrews University student who defiled an Israeli flag in a supposed political protest was acting in a racially aggravated manner. Donnachie, 19, put his hands down his trousers before he touched the flag belonging to Jewish exchange student Chanan Reitblat in what he claimed was a 'political statement'.”
Donnachie, will lose his place at St Andrews University with immediate effect. He is very unhappy with court’s decision.
The pathetic Scottish sheriff, who was booed loudly by pro-Palestine supporters, upheld the complaints, telling Donnachie: “I consider this to have been an act of malice against Mr Reitblat for his membership of Israel.
I have been monitoring the Hebrew press for the last three days and it is increasingly obvious to me and others, that no one out there, including Israeli top analysts, understands where the current escalation is leading.
However, a few things are becoming clear:
1. The so-called ‘Jewish spring’, known also as the Israeli ‘tents protest’, has been easily dismantled. The Israelis seems to be far more enthusiastic about wars than social justice. The naïve thinkers who believed that Israel was heading toward a 'social revolution' will have to eat their words once again.
2. The nature of the clash in the Egyptian border is far from being clear; yet, it is obvious that the IDF was caught unprepared. In reality, Eilat, the Israeli southern tourist resort, is in immanent danger of being cut off from the rest of the country. Israel, so it seems, doesn’t have the military answers to such a scenario.