Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Poster of Jewish settler who shoots Palestinian children
This criminal Jewish settler specializes in shooting Palestinian children. Please share the picture widely.
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
There can be no surrender to bullying by Zionists and “anti-Zionist” pretenders
From Laura Stuart:
Not the first time that I have felt compelled to write about the phenomenon of outrageous bullying tactics used against Palestine activists and indeed anyone who is prepared to stand up and speak or write the truth about Israeli/Zionist crimes.
There can be no dispute about the fact that Israel – "the Jewish state" as it calls itself – is a perpetrator of terrible human rights abuses and as a consequence has attracted more condemnations against it from the United Nations than any other country, least of all one which claims to be a democracy and ironically claims it's occupation forces as the "world’s most moral army".
Yesterday I attended the protest outside the Israeli embassy which takes place on the anniversary of the massacre named "Cast Lead". I am sure the many widows, orphans and parents who lost their children in Gaza during that 22-day offensive are enough of a testimony to the occupation forces’ so-called “morals”. The Samouni family, which lost so many members, is a prime and very tragic example. The fact that Judge Goldstone crumbled on his report under Zionist attack is a further testimony to the evil tactics of Zionist bullying and the pressure they can bring to bear.
More about Zionist bullying. It was with great interest that I read an article written by Ilan Pappe on the Electronic Intifada titled "Confronting intimidation working for justice in Palestine". I hope everyone will read the article and start to appreciate the levels of bullying that go on at every level from government down to activists like myself. It is no secret that the US leaders will always shamefully grovel to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and can be counted on to veto any resolution at the United Nations which might force Israel to be held accountable for the consequences of some of its actions. But we do not even need to look overseas; we need only reflect on the fact that 80 per cent of the UK’s ruling Conservative Party MPs are Friends of Israel.
No surprise to anyone who has read Gilad Atzmon's blog detailing the efforts the so-called “anti-Zionist” Jews will go to in hounding anyone who would share a platform with Gilad and the tactics of bullying and harassment involved, which includes being emailed and called repeatedly. Furthermore, any venue provider can expect the same treatment. Even I have been sent anonymous emails of a rather sinister nature and have many emails from such so-called “anti-Zionist” Jews as Tony Greenstein who even finds it somehow appropriate to blog about my clothes and post my photo on his blog describing me as the epitome of a "liberated woman", even though he had never met me and does not know me. You should well be asking what business what I choose to wear is of Tony Greenstein’s? I usually associate such Islamaphobic and fascist views with the likes of the EDL or Sarkozy. Just another example of an attempt at character assassination and bullying.
The list goes on and on. One activist, Nahida Izzat, wrote about the use of character assassination as a political tool after she suffered terribly at the hands of the so-called Jewish “anti-Zionists”. Others have their had their academic careers curtailed, such as Norman Finkelstein. Here on Paul Eisen's blog is a story of how people can be smeared by Zionists and let down by the leaders of the solidarity movement who somehow don't really understand the concept of solidarity. There seem to be absolutely no limits as to how far the Zionists and the self-proclaimed Jewish “anti-Zionists” are prepared to go in their attempts to discredit those who speak out.
Having described the environment in which activists for Palestine and indeed activists for justice against the Zionist/neocon so-called "war on terror" operate and the frequent attacks on them, which can be very damaging both at a personal and career level, I would suggest we need to be very alert and very steadfast in not giving in to Zionist bullying. All Palestine activists should be able to show at least a semblance of the sumoud – or steadfastness – that Palestinians themselves are famous for.
In particular, organizations that claim to represent the "solidarity" movement of Palestinian activists need to be ever vigilant of Zionist and self-proclaimed “anti-Zionist” attempts to control them from both the inside and out. While I agree that many people are working hard on many different levels to bring justice to Palestine, it would be sad to see our biggest “solidarity" organization fragment as some regional branches choose to go it alone. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and all of us would hate to see a Zionist victory using the old divide and conquer tactic.
Finally to end on a more upbeat note, I can't wait to hear more about the new forum called "deLiberation" which will shake off the Zio chains and take the discourse to new levels.
Not the first time that I have felt compelled to write about the phenomenon of outrageous bullying tactics used against Palestine activists and indeed anyone who is prepared to stand up and speak or write the truth about Israeli/Zionist crimes.
There can be no dispute about the fact that Israel – "the Jewish state" as it calls itself – is a perpetrator of terrible human rights abuses and as a consequence has attracted more condemnations against it from the United Nations than any other country, least of all one which claims to be a democracy and ironically claims it's occupation forces as the "world’s most moral army".
Yesterday I attended the protest outside the Israeli embassy which takes place on the anniversary of the massacre named "Cast Lead". I am sure the many widows, orphans and parents who lost their children in Gaza during that 22-day offensive are enough of a testimony to the occupation forces’ so-called “morals”. The Samouni family, which lost so many members, is a prime and very tragic example. The fact that Judge Goldstone crumbled on his report under Zionist attack is a further testimony to the evil tactics of Zionist bullying and the pressure they can bring to bear.
More about Zionist bullying. It was with great interest that I read an article written by Ilan Pappe on the Electronic Intifada titled "Confronting intimidation working for justice in Palestine". I hope everyone will read the article and start to appreciate the levels of bullying that go on at every level from government down to activists like myself. It is no secret that the US leaders will always shamefully grovel to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and can be counted on to veto any resolution at the United Nations which might force Israel to be held accountable for the consequences of some of its actions. But we do not even need to look overseas; we need only reflect on the fact that 80 per cent of the UK’s ruling Conservative Party MPs are Friends of Israel.
No surprise to anyone who has read Gilad Atzmon's blog detailing the efforts the so-called “anti-Zionist” Jews will go to in hounding anyone who would share a platform with Gilad and the tactics of bullying and harassment involved, which includes being emailed and called repeatedly. Furthermore, any venue provider can expect the same treatment. Even I have been sent anonymous emails of a rather sinister nature and have many emails from such so-called “anti-Zionist” Jews as Tony Greenstein who even finds it somehow appropriate to blog about my clothes and post my photo on his blog describing me as the epitome of a "liberated woman", even though he had never met me and does not know me. You should well be asking what business what I choose to wear is of Tony Greenstein’s? I usually associate such Islamaphobic and fascist views with the likes of the EDL or Sarkozy. Just another example of an attempt at character assassination and bullying.
The list goes on and on. One activist, Nahida Izzat, wrote about the use of character assassination as a political tool after she suffered terribly at the hands of the so-called Jewish “anti-Zionists”. Others have their had their academic careers curtailed, such as Norman Finkelstein. Here on Paul Eisen's blog is a story of how people can be smeared by Zionists and let down by the leaders of the solidarity movement who somehow don't really understand the concept of solidarity. There seem to be absolutely no limits as to how far the Zionists and the self-proclaimed Jewish “anti-Zionists” are prepared to go in their attempts to discredit those who speak out.
Having described the environment in which activists for Palestine and indeed activists for justice against the Zionist/neocon so-called "war on terror" operate and the frequent attacks on them, which can be very damaging both at a personal and career level, I would suggest we need to be very alert and very steadfast in not giving in to Zionist bullying. All Palestine activists should be able to show at least a semblance of the sumoud – or steadfastness – that Palestinians themselves are famous for.
In particular, organizations that claim to represent the "solidarity" movement of Palestinian activists need to be ever vigilant of Zionist and self-proclaimed “anti-Zionist” attempts to control them from both the inside and out. While I agree that many people are working hard on many different levels to bring justice to Palestine, it would be sad to see our biggest “solidarity" organization fragment as some regional branches choose to go it alone. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and all of us would hate to see a Zionist victory using the old divide and conquer tactic.
Finally to end on a more upbeat note, I can't wait to hear more about the new forum called "deLiberation" which will shake off the Zio chains and take the discourse to new levels.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
In defence of Gilad Atzmon
From Sarah Gillespie:
Gilad Atzmon’s intellectual expedition into the daunting terrain of Jewish identity politics has always evoked a storm of controversy. Still, when I first met Gilad, it was hard not to suspect he was exaggerating the extent of abuse he received from various UK pressure groups. Primarily, it’s not easy to wrap your head around the notion that a person can plausibly be branded as ‘a racist’ when they tour the world with a gypsy violinist, a black drummer, a Jewish bass player and a token English white boy on piano. However, as I began to understand the full complexities of Gilad’s arguments – a process, which, for me, required as much unlearning as it did learning – I reluctantly grasped the problem. And, to my utter horror, I also fathomed the full measure of pathological bile wielded against him. Indeed, some of it hemorrhaged in my direction.
After the 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza I organized a concert for ‘Medical Aid for Palestinians’ featuring iconic violinist Nigel Kennedy. Campaigners launched an onslaught from all sides - the right, the left, the Zionists and the anti-Zionists - individually and collectively, lobbied the owner of the venue, the director of MAP and myself, demanding that we cancel the event. Some even accused us of mobalising art to fund rocket attacks on Jews. I was shocked, upset and embarrassed that I had inadvertently dragged my friend, who owns the club, into such a shameful debacle.
After the concert (a huge success) I was labeled a Holocaust denier. Not only was this accusation ludicrous and totally unfounded it was potentially damaging to me. It is clear that in this culture, you could query the extent of the Holodomor, the Nakba or the annihilation of American Indians without raising much of an eyebrow in the public domain, but to do the same with the deaths of Jews in the Second World War is tantamount to career suicide. My lawyer advised me to get the accusation removed from the Internet but I think it best serves as a small, cyber monument to the preposterous and baseless sewage in which some people are content to swim.
More recently the cacophony of hysteria we are subjected to since Gilad’s polemic The Wondering Who crowned him a cause célèbre, has shot off the richter scale. Gilad puts up with it almost daily. Yesterday the Jewish Chronicle demanded that the Arts Counsel of Britain withdraw funding from the Raise Your Banner Festival that we are playing at together on 25th November. They failed of course, but have now resorted, in a separate piece, to simply comparing Gilad to a paedophile. I too have been inundated with hostile youtube comments, messages and emails insisting I either drop my gigs with Gilad, or issue a statement denouncing his views.
This inspired me to do the exact opposite, to state here categorically how much I support and admire Gilad Atzmon’s work, both as an artist and as a humanist, how much I cherish freedom of thought and speech and to declare that the day I withdraw from a festival because a few campaigners threaten to wreck my reputation, will be a cold day in hell. We are artists. We are entitled to express ourselves as we wish, we are entitled to sing, ask, dance, write and reflect.
It would be advantageous for Gilad’s opponents if he were, as they claim, a banal biological determinist who simply dislikes people according to the lottery of their DNA. If this were the case, I’m sure they would be slightly more successful in dismantling our concerts and banning Gilad’s talks. Unfortunately for them, too many people understand that Gilad is on an intellectual quest for truth. According to the Greek historian Herodotos, quoted above, this is most humane thing you can ever hope to do. We can not be banned from playing, from writing or form ‘wondering who’ we are. Lest we forget, the word ‘history’ comes from an ancient Greek verb meaning ‘to ask’.
So, alas dear agitators, even if we dropped dead tomorrow someone somewhere would still listening to our albums and reading Gilad’s book. I’m afraid the battle might continue but the war is already won.
Sarah Gillespie is a singer songwriter based in London. She will be discussing the role of politics in music on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Start the Week’ on Monday 21 November. Hear "How the Mighty Fall" here.
Herodotos is an historian who trains you as you read. It is a process of asking, searching, collecting, doubting, striving, testing, blaming, and above all standing amazed at the strange things humans do’ - Poet and translator of ancient Greek, Anne Carson, Nox (2011)
Gilad Atzmon’s intellectual expedition into the daunting terrain of Jewish identity politics has always evoked a storm of controversy. Still, when I first met Gilad, it was hard not to suspect he was exaggerating the extent of abuse he received from various UK pressure groups. Primarily, it’s not easy to wrap your head around the notion that a person can plausibly be branded as ‘a racist’ when they tour the world with a gypsy violinist, a black drummer, a Jewish bass player and a token English white boy on piano. However, as I began to understand the full complexities of Gilad’s arguments – a process, which, for me, required as much unlearning as it did learning – I reluctantly grasped the problem. And, to my utter horror, I also fathomed the full measure of pathological bile wielded against him. Indeed, some of it hemorrhaged in my direction.
After the 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza I organized a concert for ‘Medical Aid for Palestinians’ featuring iconic violinist Nigel Kennedy. Campaigners launched an onslaught from all sides - the right, the left, the Zionists and the anti-Zionists - individually and collectively, lobbied the owner of the venue, the director of MAP and myself, demanding that we cancel the event. Some even accused us of mobalising art to fund rocket attacks on Jews. I was shocked, upset and embarrassed that I had inadvertently dragged my friend, who owns the club, into such a shameful debacle.
After the concert (a huge success) I was labeled a Holocaust denier. Not only was this accusation ludicrous and totally unfounded it was potentially damaging to me. It is clear that in this culture, you could query the extent of the Holodomor, the Nakba or the annihilation of American Indians without raising much of an eyebrow in the public domain, but to do the same with the deaths of Jews in the Second World War is tantamount to career suicide. My lawyer advised me to get the accusation removed from the Internet but I think it best serves as a small, cyber monument to the preposterous and baseless sewage in which some people are content to swim.
More recently the cacophony of hysteria we are subjected to since Gilad’s polemic The Wondering Who crowned him a cause célèbre, has shot off the richter scale. Gilad puts up with it almost daily. Yesterday the Jewish Chronicle demanded that the Arts Counsel of Britain withdraw funding from the Raise Your Banner Festival that we are playing at together on 25th November. They failed of course, but have now resorted, in a separate piece, to simply comparing Gilad to a paedophile. I too have been inundated with hostile youtube comments, messages and emails insisting I either drop my gigs with Gilad, or issue a statement denouncing his views.
This inspired me to do the exact opposite, to state here categorically how much I support and admire Gilad Atzmon’s work, both as an artist and as a humanist, how much I cherish freedom of thought and speech and to declare that the day I withdraw from a festival because a few campaigners threaten to wreck my reputation, will be a cold day in hell. We are artists. We are entitled to express ourselves as we wish, we are entitled to sing, ask, dance, write and reflect.
It would be advantageous for Gilad’s opponents if he were, as they claim, a banal biological determinist who simply dislikes people according to the lottery of their DNA. If this were the case, I’m sure they would be slightly more successful in dismantling our concerts and banning Gilad’s talks. Unfortunately for them, too many people understand that Gilad is on an intellectual quest for truth. According to the Greek historian Herodotos, quoted above, this is most humane thing you can ever hope to do. We can not be banned from playing, from writing or form ‘wondering who’ we are. Lest we forget, the word ‘history’ comes from an ancient Greek verb meaning ‘to ask’.
So, alas dear agitators, even if we dropped dead tomorrow someone somewhere would still listening to our albums and reading Gilad’s book. I’m afraid the battle might continue but the war is already won.
Sarah Gillespie is a singer songwriter based in London. She will be discussing the role of politics in music on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Start the Week’ on Monday 21 November. Hear "How the Mighty Fall" here.
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Alan Dershowitz’ lies and glitches
From Gilad Atzmon:
Rabid Zionist Alan Dershowitz is devastated by the success of The Wandering Who. He just cannot accept that professors and academics endorse the book “as ‘brilliant,’ ‘fascinating,’ ‘absorbing,’ and ‘moving’,” In his latest article he again misses an opportunity to debate the book, its message and its meaning. He prefers instead to indulge in the only things for which he possesses any talent at all - lying and bullying.
But why, I wonder, does Dershowitz insist on reducing a potentially ethical, intellectual and ideological debate to just one more Zionist exercise in mud-slinging? I can think of only two possible answers; First, Dershowitz lacks the necessary intellect to engage in a debate and second, that Zionism and Israel cannot be defended - ethically, morally or intellectually.
But there is also an amusing aspect to Dershowitz’s Zio-centric tantrum. For some strange reason, he believes that it’s down to him, an ultra Zionist, to decide who his kosher enough to lead the Palestinian solidarity discourse. “There is growing concern that some of Israel’s most vocal detractors are crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism,” he pontificates without really being able to point at any anti Semitism in mine or anyone else’s work. But is it down to Dershowitz or any other Zionist to define the ‘red lines’ of the solidarity discourse?
Dershowitz tries so hard to ‘prove’ that I am an anti-Semite but fails to even define what anti Semitism is. In the past, anti Semites were people who didn’t like Jews but on Planet Dershowitz, anti-Semites are simply those Dershowitz hates (or fears). He mentions, for instance, the significant role of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger in shaping my views yet seems unable to suggest exactly what it is in Weininger’s influence that makes me into an ‘anti- Semite’. He points at my contempt for the ‘the Jew in me’ but this leaves me wondering, why am I not permitted to hate myself? Why am I not permitted to loathe ‘the Jew in me’? I’ll try to expand on this. Why is it that when I hate ‘myself’ Dershowitz is so devastatingly and personally offended? Is it possible that my loathing of the ‘Jew in me’ exposes an inherent problem at the core of Jewish identity politics in general? And if this is indeed the case, why can’t we just discuss it openly? What is Dershowitz afraid of?
It’s obvious that, like other Zionists, Dershowitz lacks the elementary capacity to engage in proper intellectual debate. Instead he prefers to take quotes out of context – or if that fails, well, he just lies.
In his latest article, Dershowitz conceals from his readers the fact that my book deals solely with Jewish ideology. It avoids any reference to Jews as people, race or ethnicity and concentrates only on ideology and culture. He probably realises that my avoidance of any form of criticism of the Jews as people or ethnicity leaves him and his life’s-work on a path to nowhere.
For example, I do indeed call the recent credit crunch a ‘Zio-punch’ (22) and I insist that by no means was it “a Jewish conspiracy”. Because, as I clearly prove, “it was all in the open” (30).
So why is this anti Semitic? I neither blame, nor associate the ‘Jew’ or the ‘Jews’ with the financial turmoil. But I do make the necessary connection between that financial turmoil and the criminal Zionist wars in which we are engaged. If Dershowitz is unhappy with my reading of the situation, well, all he has to do is to produce a counter-argument. Clearly, this is the one thing he cannot do.
I also follow Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and argue that, as far as Israel is concerned, Influential Zionists had better stay right where they are in the Diaspora rather than make Aliya. Have not Wolfowitz, Rahm, Emmanuel, Dershowitz etc “proved far more effective for the Zionist cause by staying where they are”? (19). Is this an anti Semitic statement? Is it not rather an ‘astute political observation’?
And Dershowitz is right. I do insist that the American media “failed to warn the American people of the enemy within” (27), though it seems that those who now occupy Wall Street have certainly managed to grasp who the enemy are and where they may be found. But is it really anti-Semitic to oppose the influential lobby of a foreign State which dominates your country’s foreign policy? Is it anti-Semitic to oppose a politically motivated club that succeeds in driving your country to financial ruin?
Dershowitz writes “Atzmon has written that Jews are evil and a menace to humanity”. This does leave me a touch bewildered, because, first, it doesn’t represent my views at all. Second, it doesn’t sound even remotely like me or my writing. Third, not one single sentence in my book or in my writing refers to ‘Jews’ as people or an ethnic group but only to Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture or Jewish ideology. Far more significant is the fact that Dershowitz fails to support his bizarre statement with any contextual reference whatsoever. Instead of citing any criticism of ‘Jews’ or the “Jew’ he just provides us with examples of my criticism of Israeli behaviour. “With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum.”
The truth is that, in my original text, the above sentence actually refers to Zionist lawyer Anthony Julius’ latest book. Here is the original quote in full: “It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the bloodthirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians seems to be just a further event in an endless hellish continuum.” (51)
Harsh words indeed, but they refer clearly to Anthony Julius’ Zionist advocacy and his obsession with Jewish stereotypes such as Shylock and Fagin. So what’s Dershowitz up to?
But, I’ll say this for him, he doesn’t give up. Again, he tries his luck - “The Homo Zionicus quickly became a mass murderer, detached from any recognised form of ethical thinking and engaged in a colossal crime against humanity.” – but again he fails. The ‘Homo Zionicus’ is not a ‘general’ reference to ‘Jews’ but a clear attempt to point at a particular form of Jewish national school of thought, namely Zionismus. Dershowitz should explain to us, once and for all why he believes that Zionism is beyond criticism.
Now Dershowitz gets desperate. His article is going nowhere so now he decides to deceive his readers. He quotes me as saying “[T]o be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order” (20) and this commitment “pulls more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous and unethical fellowship” (21).
I was slightly surprised to read this quote since such a statement would be for me completely out of character. So I decided to check my original text. And would you believe it, it was immediately clear that Dershowitz had deliberately and consciously decided to drop the first half of the sentence. He was, quite simply, trying to trick the reader. Judge for yourself.
“(Jodeph) Lapid, later a member of Sharon’s cabinet, makes it very clear: to be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order.”
Yes, the above sentence actually refers to right wing Israeli journalist Joseph Lapid’s perception of Jewishness. But in his article Dershowitz tries to attribute this view to me. Truly, Dershowitz does work ‘by the way of deception’.
I know Dershowitz is no fool. He knew what he was doing. He was lying in an attempt to score points. But the irony of this grubby little episode is that the above half-quote actually portrays Dershowitz’s true ethical attitude. For him at least, ‘to be a Zionist is a deep commitment that goes very far beyond any legal or moral order’. The question to ask here is whether Dershowitz’s deceitful attitude is symptomatic of the Zionist discourse. I am afraid that this may be indeed the case. After all, the Mossad’s mantra is plainly clear-“ by way of deception, thou shalt make war.”
Dershowitz continues. If Iran and Israel fight a nuclear war that kills tens of millions of people, “some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all’” (179). Here, I obviously stand by my words. I really don’t think that Germans, Italian and French will be all that pleased to learn that a lethal radioactive cloud is approaching their borders due to an Israeli pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. This is not wishful thinking on my part, as I clearly state in the book, but a clear warning to Israel. If Israel proceeds with its plans to nuke Iran, the consequences may well include a serious shift in the view of the Jewish past.
Dershowitz says, “Atzmon regularly urges his readers to doubt the Holocaust and to reject Jewish history.” Here, correction is needed. I actually urge my readers to question every historical narrative and this obviously includes the Shoa and Jewish history. And yes, I do indeed oppose any notion of the primacy of Jewish suffering.
Dershowitz quotes me as saying “Even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists.” I must admit to being rather proud of my aphorism here so thank you Mr Dershowitz for sharing one of my gems with your Neo-con readers.
Anyway, he’s certainly not impressed by my idea that children should be allowed to question “how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless” (185). I suppose that Dershowitz the ignoramus hasn’t heard about Israeli professor Ariel Toaff’s study of Jewish medieval blood libel. Toaff found that accusations of blood rituals levelled against Jews in the Middle Ages were not entirely without foundation, to say the least. I suppose that if Dershowitz had heard about Toaff, his reaction to my take on the subject might have been a little more tolerant.
Dershowitz kindly says on my behalf that “the history of Jewish persecution is a myth, and if there was any persecution the Jews brought it on themselves” and he even provides page numbers: (175, 182). Well, this statement sounded foreign to me, so I searched the relevant pages but could find none of the above. Is it possible that a professor at Harvard Law School would deceive so openly and repeatedly? I fear this indeed may be the case.
“Atzmon”, write Dershowitz, “argues that Jews are corrupt and responsible for ‘why’ they are ‘hated’.” Again I’m puzzled because the book is not about ‘Jews’ but about Identity politics. So I was looking forward to seeing how Dershowitz supports this peculiar interpretation. And yet again, it seems that it is Dershowitz himself who conflates the notions of the ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’. Dershowitz quotes me saying- “[I]n order to promote Zionist interests, Israel must generate significant anti-Jewish sentiment. Cruelty against Palestinian civilians is a favourite Israeli means of achieving this aim.” It is totally clear that the above quote refers to Israel and Israeli politics. It doesn’t refer at all to the ‘Jew’ or ‘Jews’.
At one stage Dershowitz just loses it. He starts to think that he can get away with downright deception. For instance, he accuses me of suggesting that “The ‘Judaic God’ described in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 ‘is an evil deity, who leads his people to plunder, robbery and theft’ (120). But he deliberately fails to produce the most relevant quotes. Here they are, and I will leave it to you to come up with the appropriate judgment regarding Deuteronomy’s God:
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations …you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” (Deuteronomy 7:1–2)
“Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them … as the Lord your God has commanded you …” (Deuteronomy 20:16)
I’m afraid that the above God does not appear to be the most compassionate and merciful around.
According to Dershowitz it is “Atzmon (who) explains that ‘Israel and Zionism … have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures” (121).”
Here is the complete original quote. It makes a lot of sense to me, but is not in any way anti-Semitic. “The never-ending theft of Palestine in the name of the Jewish people is part of a spiritual, ideological, cultural and practical continuum between the Bible, Zionist ideology and the State of Israel (along with its overseas supporters). Israel and Zionism, both successful political systems, have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures.” (121)
The above quote is certainly not very flattering to the Zionist project but it is, nonetheless, an attempt to understand the logos behind Israeli aggression. Dershowitz is entitled to present a counter-argument. But this is something, he never manages to do.
Rarely does Dershowitz manage to draw an appropriate and informed conclusion from the book. Here, somehow, he succeeded. “The moral of the Book of Esther is that Jews ‘had better infiltrate the corridors of power’ if they wish to survive (158).” This is, I believe, the primary moral of The Book of Esther. And in ‘The Wandering Who’ I do indeed establish an ideological continuum between The Book of Esther and the Book of AIPAC. Is it anti Semitic to trace the ideological background of an ethnocentric political aspiration?
Dershowitz also grasps that as far as I’m concerned, in some ways, Israel is indeed worse than Nazi Germany. “Many of us including me tend to equate Israel to Nazi Germany. Rather often I myself join others and argue that Israelis are the Nazis of our time. I want to take this opportunity to amend my statement. Israelis are not the Nazis of our time and the Nazis were not the Israelis of their time. Israel is in fact far worse than Nazi Germany and the above equation is simply meaningless and misleading.”
For obvious reasons Dershowitz fails to provide a reference, and he also manages to forget to provide us with the next few lines which are crucial to the understanding of the above statement. “Unlike totalitarian Nazi Germany, the Jewish State is a 'democracy'. In other words, the entirety of its Jewish population is complicit in IDF crimes against humanity. As if this is not enough, the fact that 94% of Israel's Jewish population supported the IDF genocidal attack in Gaza just over a year ago makes the case against Israel solid like a rock.” It is a fact that Israel is a ‘democracy’ and that makes Israelis collectively complicit in the colossal and continuous Israeli crime against humanity.
Sad it may be, but in his entire article Dershowitz fails to provide a single example of ‘bigotry against Jews’. He instead tries to silence any criticism of Israel and Zionism. I would agree with Dershowitz that some of the things I say and write could be painful to both Zionist and Jewish ethnic activists, but here, Dershowitz may just have to come to terms with the fact that political, ideological and ethical matters are sometimes painful.
Perhaps one day Dershowitz might admit that he couldn’t find any real fault in the book. “(L)ike other classic anti-Semites, Atzmon doesn’t simply fault the individual Jews he names; he concocts a worldwide Jewish conspiracy motivated by a ‘ruthless Zio-driven’ (27) ‘Jewish ideology’ (69) that finds its source in ‘the lethal spirit (122) of the Hebrew Bible.” Unfortunately Dershowitz is again not accurate. He’s right when he admits that I ‘do not fault individual Jews’, but surely he must also know that I oppose the notion of ‘Jewish conspiracy’. Every anecdote and reference in the book is subject to public and open scrutiny. In my work there is no Jewish conspiracy. Everything is done right out in the open. I indeed blame the ideology and look into the culture because I believe that Ideology must be subject to scrutiny and criticism.
But Dershowitz must believe that Jewish ideology is beyond criticism. On that I disagree. Being an anti-racist writer, I oppose any form of Jewish supremacy. Moreover, considering that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and bearing in mind the level of its criminality, surely scrutinising Jewishness must be a primary humanist task.
Dershowitz ends his empty drivel by challenging Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Richard Falk to a public debate “about why they have endorsed and said such positive things about so hateful and anti-Semitic a book by so bigoted and dishonest a writer.”
It’s pretty obvious that Dershowitz has failed to produce a single shred of evidence of myself being anti-Semitic. But it’s also embarrassingly clear that when Dershowitz speaks about a “bigoted and dishonest writer” he actually projects his own symptoms onto me – yes, he is speaking about himself. This Zionist bigot must be tormented by his own life of deceit.
I doubt if respected academics and humanists such as Mearsheimer and Falk would find the time for Dershowitz. However, as I said before, I will find the time for this Zionist mouthpiece. I would just adore tearing him apart in public. As I said before, Mr Dershowitz, any place, any time.
Rabid Zionist Alan Dershowitz is devastated by the success of The Wandering Who. He just cannot accept that professors and academics endorse the book “as ‘brilliant,’ ‘fascinating,’ ‘absorbing,’ and ‘moving’,” In his latest article he again misses an opportunity to debate the book, its message and its meaning. He prefers instead to indulge in the only things for which he possesses any talent at all - lying and bullying.
But why, I wonder, does Dershowitz insist on reducing a potentially ethical, intellectual and ideological debate to just one more Zionist exercise in mud-slinging? I can think of only two possible answers; First, Dershowitz lacks the necessary intellect to engage in a debate and second, that Zionism and Israel cannot be defended - ethically, morally or intellectually.
But there is also an amusing aspect to Dershowitz’s Zio-centric tantrum. For some strange reason, he believes that it’s down to him, an ultra Zionist, to decide who his kosher enough to lead the Palestinian solidarity discourse. “There is growing concern that some of Israel’s most vocal detractors are crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism,” he pontificates without really being able to point at any anti Semitism in mine or anyone else’s work. But is it down to Dershowitz or any other Zionist to define the ‘red lines’ of the solidarity discourse?
Dershowitz tries so hard to ‘prove’ that I am an anti-Semite but fails to even define what anti Semitism is. In the past, anti Semites were people who didn’t like Jews but on Planet Dershowitz, anti-Semites are simply those Dershowitz hates (or fears). He mentions, for instance, the significant role of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger in shaping my views yet seems unable to suggest exactly what it is in Weininger’s influence that makes me into an ‘anti- Semite’. He points at my contempt for the ‘the Jew in me’ but this leaves me wondering, why am I not permitted to hate myself? Why am I not permitted to loathe ‘the Jew in me’? I’ll try to expand on this. Why is it that when I hate ‘myself’ Dershowitz is so devastatingly and personally offended? Is it possible that my loathing of the ‘Jew in me’ exposes an inherent problem at the core of Jewish identity politics in general? And if this is indeed the case, why can’t we just discuss it openly? What is Dershowitz afraid of?
It’s obvious that, like other Zionists, Dershowitz lacks the elementary capacity to engage in proper intellectual debate. Instead he prefers to take quotes out of context – or if that fails, well, he just lies.
In his latest article, Dershowitz conceals from his readers the fact that my book deals solely with Jewish ideology. It avoids any reference to Jews as people, race or ethnicity and concentrates only on ideology and culture. He probably realises that my avoidance of any form of criticism of the Jews as people or ethnicity leaves him and his life’s-work on a path to nowhere.
For example, I do indeed call the recent credit crunch a ‘Zio-punch’ (22) and I insist that by no means was it “a Jewish conspiracy”. Because, as I clearly prove, “it was all in the open” (30).
So why is this anti Semitic? I neither blame, nor associate the ‘Jew’ or the ‘Jews’ with the financial turmoil. But I do make the necessary connection between that financial turmoil and the criminal Zionist wars in which we are engaged. If Dershowitz is unhappy with my reading of the situation, well, all he has to do is to produce a counter-argument. Clearly, this is the one thing he cannot do.
I also follow Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and argue that, as far as Israel is concerned, Influential Zionists had better stay right where they are in the Diaspora rather than make Aliya. Have not Wolfowitz, Rahm, Emmanuel, Dershowitz etc “proved far more effective for the Zionist cause by staying where they are”? (19). Is this an anti Semitic statement? Is it not rather an ‘astute political observation’?
And Dershowitz is right. I do insist that the American media “failed to warn the American people of the enemy within” (27), though it seems that those who now occupy Wall Street have certainly managed to grasp who the enemy are and where they may be found. But is it really anti-Semitic to oppose the influential lobby of a foreign State which dominates your country’s foreign policy? Is it anti-Semitic to oppose a politically motivated club that succeeds in driving your country to financial ruin?
Dershowitz writes “Atzmon has written that Jews are evil and a menace to humanity”. This does leave me a touch bewildered, because, first, it doesn’t represent my views at all. Second, it doesn’t sound even remotely like me or my writing. Third, not one single sentence in my book or in my writing refers to ‘Jews’ as people or an ethnic group but only to Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture or Jewish ideology. Far more significant is the fact that Dershowitz fails to support his bizarre statement with any contextual reference whatsoever. Instead of citing any criticism of ‘Jews’ or the “Jew’ he just provides us with examples of my criticism of Israeli behaviour. “With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum.”
The truth is that, in my original text, the above sentence actually refers to Zionist lawyer Anthony Julius’ latest book. Here is the original quote in full: “It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the bloodthirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians seems to be just a further event in an endless hellish continuum.” (51)
Harsh words indeed, but they refer clearly to Anthony Julius’ Zionist advocacy and his obsession with Jewish stereotypes such as Shylock and Fagin. So what’s Dershowitz up to?
But, I’ll say this for him, he doesn’t give up. Again, he tries his luck - “The Homo Zionicus quickly became a mass murderer, detached from any recognised form of ethical thinking and engaged in a colossal crime against humanity.” – but again he fails. The ‘Homo Zionicus’ is not a ‘general’ reference to ‘Jews’ but a clear attempt to point at a particular form of Jewish national school of thought, namely Zionismus. Dershowitz should explain to us, once and for all why he believes that Zionism is beyond criticism.
Now Dershowitz gets desperate. His article is going nowhere so now he decides to deceive his readers. He quotes me as saying “[T]o be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order” (20) and this commitment “pulls more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous and unethical fellowship” (21).
I was slightly surprised to read this quote since such a statement would be for me completely out of character. So I decided to check my original text. And would you believe it, it was immediately clear that Dershowitz had deliberately and consciously decided to drop the first half of the sentence. He was, quite simply, trying to trick the reader. Judge for yourself.
“(Jodeph) Lapid, later a member of Sharon’s cabinet, makes it very clear: to be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order.”
Yes, the above sentence actually refers to right wing Israeli journalist Joseph Lapid’s perception of Jewishness. But in his article Dershowitz tries to attribute this view to me. Truly, Dershowitz does work ‘by the way of deception’.
I know Dershowitz is no fool. He knew what he was doing. He was lying in an attempt to score points. But the irony of this grubby little episode is that the above half-quote actually portrays Dershowitz’s true ethical attitude. For him at least, ‘to be a Zionist is a deep commitment that goes very far beyond any legal or moral order’. The question to ask here is whether Dershowitz’s deceitful attitude is symptomatic of the Zionist discourse. I am afraid that this may be indeed the case. After all, the Mossad’s mantra is plainly clear-“ by way of deception, thou shalt make war.”
Dershowitz continues. If Iran and Israel fight a nuclear war that kills tens of millions of people, “some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all’” (179). Here, I obviously stand by my words. I really don’t think that Germans, Italian and French will be all that pleased to learn that a lethal radioactive cloud is approaching their borders due to an Israeli pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. This is not wishful thinking on my part, as I clearly state in the book, but a clear warning to Israel. If Israel proceeds with its plans to nuke Iran, the consequences may well include a serious shift in the view of the Jewish past.
Dershowitz says, “Atzmon regularly urges his readers to doubt the Holocaust and to reject Jewish history.” Here, correction is needed. I actually urge my readers to question every historical narrative and this obviously includes the Shoa and Jewish history. And yes, I do indeed oppose any notion of the primacy of Jewish suffering.
Dershowitz quotes me as saying “Even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists.” I must admit to being rather proud of my aphorism here so thank you Mr Dershowitz for sharing one of my gems with your Neo-con readers.
Anyway, he’s certainly not impressed by my idea that children should be allowed to question “how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless” (185). I suppose that Dershowitz the ignoramus hasn’t heard about Israeli professor Ariel Toaff’s study of Jewish medieval blood libel. Toaff found that accusations of blood rituals levelled against Jews in the Middle Ages were not entirely without foundation, to say the least. I suppose that if Dershowitz had heard about Toaff, his reaction to my take on the subject might have been a little more tolerant.
Dershowitz kindly says on my behalf that “the history of Jewish persecution is a myth, and if there was any persecution the Jews brought it on themselves” and he even provides page numbers: (175, 182). Well, this statement sounded foreign to me, so I searched the relevant pages but could find none of the above. Is it possible that a professor at Harvard Law School would deceive so openly and repeatedly? I fear this indeed may be the case.
“Atzmon”, write Dershowitz, “argues that Jews are corrupt and responsible for ‘why’ they are ‘hated’.” Again I’m puzzled because the book is not about ‘Jews’ but about Identity politics. So I was looking forward to seeing how Dershowitz supports this peculiar interpretation. And yet again, it seems that it is Dershowitz himself who conflates the notions of the ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’. Dershowitz quotes me saying- “[I]n order to promote Zionist interests, Israel must generate significant anti-Jewish sentiment. Cruelty against Palestinian civilians is a favourite Israeli means of achieving this aim.” It is totally clear that the above quote refers to Israel and Israeli politics. It doesn’t refer at all to the ‘Jew’ or ‘Jews’.
At one stage Dershowitz just loses it. He starts to think that he can get away with downright deception. For instance, he accuses me of suggesting that “The ‘Judaic God’ described in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 ‘is an evil deity, who leads his people to plunder, robbery and theft’ (120). But he deliberately fails to produce the most relevant quotes. Here they are, and I will leave it to you to come up with the appropriate judgment regarding Deuteronomy’s God:
“When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations …you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” (Deuteronomy 7:1–2)
“Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them … as the Lord your God has commanded you …” (Deuteronomy 20:16)
I’m afraid that the above God does not appear to be the most compassionate and merciful around.
According to Dershowitz it is “Atzmon (who) explains that ‘Israel and Zionism … have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures” (121).”
Here is the complete original quote. It makes a lot of sense to me, but is not in any way anti-Semitic. “The never-ending theft of Palestine in the name of the Jewish people is part of a spiritual, ideological, cultural and practical continuum between the Bible, Zionist ideology and the State of Israel (along with its overseas supporters). Israel and Zionism, both successful political systems, have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures.” (121)
The above quote is certainly not very flattering to the Zionist project but it is, nonetheless, an attempt to understand the logos behind Israeli aggression. Dershowitz is entitled to present a counter-argument. But this is something, he never manages to do.
Rarely does Dershowitz manage to draw an appropriate and informed conclusion from the book. Here, somehow, he succeeded. “The moral of the Book of Esther is that Jews ‘had better infiltrate the corridors of power’ if they wish to survive (158).” This is, I believe, the primary moral of The Book of Esther. And in ‘The Wandering Who’ I do indeed establish an ideological continuum between The Book of Esther and the Book of AIPAC. Is it anti Semitic to trace the ideological background of an ethnocentric political aspiration?
Dershowitz also grasps that as far as I’m concerned, in some ways, Israel is indeed worse than Nazi Germany. “Many of us including me tend to equate Israel to Nazi Germany. Rather often I myself join others and argue that Israelis are the Nazis of our time. I want to take this opportunity to amend my statement. Israelis are not the Nazis of our time and the Nazis were not the Israelis of their time. Israel is in fact far worse than Nazi Germany and the above equation is simply meaningless and misleading.”
For obvious reasons Dershowitz fails to provide a reference, and he also manages to forget to provide us with the next few lines which are crucial to the understanding of the above statement. “Unlike totalitarian Nazi Germany, the Jewish State is a 'democracy'. In other words, the entirety of its Jewish population is complicit in IDF crimes against humanity. As if this is not enough, the fact that 94% of Israel's Jewish population supported the IDF genocidal attack in Gaza just over a year ago makes the case against Israel solid like a rock.” It is a fact that Israel is a ‘democracy’ and that makes Israelis collectively complicit in the colossal and continuous Israeli crime against humanity.
Sad it may be, but in his entire article Dershowitz fails to provide a single example of ‘bigotry against Jews’. He instead tries to silence any criticism of Israel and Zionism. I would agree with Dershowitz that some of the things I say and write could be painful to both Zionist and Jewish ethnic activists, but here, Dershowitz may just have to come to terms with the fact that political, ideological and ethical matters are sometimes painful.
Perhaps one day Dershowitz might admit that he couldn’t find any real fault in the book. “(L)ike other classic anti-Semites, Atzmon doesn’t simply fault the individual Jews he names; he concocts a worldwide Jewish conspiracy motivated by a ‘ruthless Zio-driven’ (27) ‘Jewish ideology’ (69) that finds its source in ‘the lethal spirit (122) of the Hebrew Bible.” Unfortunately Dershowitz is again not accurate. He’s right when he admits that I ‘do not fault individual Jews’, but surely he must also know that I oppose the notion of ‘Jewish conspiracy’. Every anecdote and reference in the book is subject to public and open scrutiny. In my work there is no Jewish conspiracy. Everything is done right out in the open. I indeed blame the ideology and look into the culture because I believe that Ideology must be subject to scrutiny and criticism.
But Dershowitz must believe that Jewish ideology is beyond criticism. On that I disagree. Being an anti-racist writer, I oppose any form of Jewish supremacy. Moreover, considering that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and bearing in mind the level of its criminality, surely scrutinising Jewishness must be a primary humanist task.
Dershowitz ends his empty drivel by challenging Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Richard Falk to a public debate “about why they have endorsed and said such positive things about so hateful and anti-Semitic a book by so bigoted and dishonest a writer.”
It’s pretty obvious that Dershowitz has failed to produce a single shred of evidence of myself being anti-Semitic. But it’s also embarrassingly clear that when Dershowitz speaks about a “bigoted and dishonest writer” he actually projects his own symptoms onto me – yes, he is speaking about himself. This Zionist bigot must be tormented by his own life of deceit.
I doubt if respected academics and humanists such as Mearsheimer and Falk would find the time for Dershowitz. However, as I said before, I will find the time for this Zionist mouthpiece. I would just adore tearing him apart in public. As I said before, Mr Dershowitz, any place, any time.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Out now: The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics
In the last weeks Gilad Atzmon's new book The Wandering Who? has received incredible support from some of the most inspiring people around.
It is no secret that some very forceful elements have been investing a lot of effort trying to stop the book and its message. So far, they have failed.
You can now order The Wandering Who? on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
A new short video about the book is available here:
It is no secret that some very forceful elements have been investing a lot of effort trying to stop the book and its message. So far, they have failed.
You can now order The Wandering Who? on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.
A new short video about the book is available here:
Monday, 26 September 2011
Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear
From Foreign Policy:
Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote -- a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side -- but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.
The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg's sally, and he sent the following reply.
John Mearsheimer writes:
In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.
His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:
The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book -- what blurber does? -- but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.
Goldberg maintains that Atzmon is a categorically reprehensible person, and accuses him of being a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler. These are two of the most devastating charges that can be leveled against anyone. According to Goldberg, the mere fact that I blurbed Atzmon's book is decisive evidence that I share Atzmon's supposedly odious views. This indictment of me is captured in the title of Goldberg's piece: "John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist."
This charge is so ludicrous that it is hard to know where to start my response. But let me begin by noting that I have taught countless University of Chicago students over the years about the Holocaust and about Hitler's role in it. Nobody who has been in my classes would ever accuse me of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers or making excuses for what Hitler did to European Jews. Not surprisingly, those loathsome charges have never been leveled against me until Goldberg did so last week.
Equally important, Gilad Atzmon is neither a Holocaust denier nor an apologist for Hitler. Consider the following excerpt from The Wandering Who?
It seems unequivocally clear to me from those sentences that Atzmon firmly believes that the Holocaust occurred and was a horrific tragedy. I cannot find evidence in his book or in his other writings that indicate he "traffics in Holocaust denial."
The real issue for Atzmon -- and this is reflected in the excerpt from his blog post that Goldberg quotes from -- is how the Holocaust is interpreted and used by the Jewish establishment. Atzmon has three complaints. He believes that it is used to justify Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians and to fend off criticism of Israel. This is an argument made by many other writers, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, historian Peter Novick, and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. Atzmon also rejects the claim that the Holocaust is exceptional, which is a position that other respected scholars have held. There have been other genocides in world history, after all, and this whole issue was actively debated in the negotiations that led to the building of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Whatever one thinks of Atzmon's position on this subject, it is hardly beyond the pale.
Finally, Atzmon is angry about the fact that it is difficult to raise certain questions about the causes and the conduct of the Holocaust without being personally attacked. These are all defensible if controversial positions to hold, which is not to say one has to agree with any of them. But in no way is he questioning that the Holocaust happened or denying its importance. In fact, his view is clear from one of Atzmon's sentences that Goldberg quotes: "We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place." Note that Atzmon is talking about "the holocaust" in a way that makes it clear he has no doubts about its occurrence, and the passage from The Wandering Who? cited above makes it clear that he has no doubts about its importance or its tragic dimensions; he merely believes it should be seen in a different way. Again, one need not agree with Atzmon to recognize that Goldberg has badly misrepresented his position.
There is also no evidence that I could find in The Wandering Who? to support Goldberg's claim that Atzmon is an apologist for Hitler or that he believes "Jews persecuted Hitler" and in so doing helped trigger the Holocaust. There is actually little discussion of Hitler in Atzmon's book, and the only discussion of interactions between Hitler and the Jews concerns the efforts of German Zionists to work out a modus vivendi with the Nazis. (pp. 162-165) This is why Goldberg is forced to go to one of Atzmon's blog posts to make the case that he is an apologist for Hitler.
Before I examine the substance of that charge, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed directly. Goldberg's indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who? Indeed, Goldberg's blog post is silent on whether he has actually read the book. If he did read it, he apparently could not find any evidence to support his indictment of Atzmon. Instead, he relied exclusively on evidence culled from Atzmon's own blog postings. That is why Goldberg's assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon's book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon.
This tactic puts me in a difficult position. I was asked to review Atzmon's book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon's blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.
Goldberg, however, has shifted the focus onto what Atzmon has written on his blog. I discuss a couple of examples below, but I will not defend his blog output in detail for two reasons. First, I do not know what Atzmon may have said in all of his past blog posts and other writings or in the various talks that he has given over the years. Second, what he says in those places is not relevant to what I did, which was simply to read and react to his book.
Let me now turn to the specific claim that Atzmon is an "apologist for Hitler." Again, I am somewhat reluctant to do this, because this charge forces me to defend what Atzmon said in one of his blog posts. But given the prominence of the charge in Goldberg's indictment of Atzmon (and me), I cannot let it pass.
Plus, I see that Walter Russell Mead, who is also fond of smearing Steve Walt and me, has put this charge up in bright lights on his own blog. Picking up on Goldberg's original post, Mead describes Atzmon's argument this way: "poor Adolf Hitler's actions against German Jews only came after US Jews called a boycott on German goods following Hitler's appointment as German Chancellor. Gosh -- if it weren't for those pushy, aggressive Jews and their annoying boycotts, the Holocaust might not have happened!"
It is hard to imagine any sane person making such an argument, and Atzmon never does. Goldberg refers to a blog post that Atzmon wrote on March 25, 2010, written in response to news at the time that AIPAC had "decided to mount pressure" on President Obama. After describing what was happening with Obama, Atzmon notes that this kind of behavior is hardly unprecedented. In his words, "Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even superpowers." There is no question that this statement is accurate and not even all that controversial; Tom Friedman said as much in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.
In the second half of this post, Atzmon says that AIPAC's behavior reminds him of the March 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods, which preceded Hitler's decision on March 28, 1933 to boycott Jewish stores and goods. His basic point is that the Jewish boycott had negative consequences, which it did. In Atzmon's narrative -- and this is a very important theme in his book -- Jews are not simply passive victims of other people's actions. On the contrary, he believes Jews have considerable agency and their actions are not always wise. One can agree or disagree with his views about the wisdom of the Jewish boycott -- and I happen to think he's wrong about it -- but he is not arguing that the Jews were "persecuting Hitler" and that this alleged "persecution" led to the Holocaust. In fact, he says nothing about the Holocaust in his post and he certainly does not justify in any way the murder of six million Jews.
Let me make one additional point about Goldberg's mining of Atzmon's blog posts. Goldberg ends his attack on me with the following quotation from a Feb. 19 blog post by Atzmon: "I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany." That quotation certainly makes Atzmon look like he has lost his mind and that nothing he has written could be trusted. But Goldberg has misrepresented what Atzmon really said, which is one of his standard tactics. Specifically, he quotes only part of a sentence from Atzmon's blog post; but when you look at the entire sentence, you see that Atzmon is making a different, and far more nuanced point. The entire sentence reads: "Indeed, I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany, for unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is a democracy and that implies that Israeli citizens are complicit in Israeli atrocities." This is not an argument I would make, but what Atzmon is saying is quite different from the way Goldberg portrays it.
Finally, let me address the charge that Atzmon himself is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. The implication of this accusation, of course, is that I must be an anti-Semite too (I can't be a self-hating Jew) because I agreed to blurb Atzmon's book. I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, although that charge is thrown around so carelessly these days that it has regrettably lost much of its meaning. If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish -- no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously.
The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes. He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza. What is going on here?
The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the "Chosen People." His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who "happen to be of Jewish origin." Rather, his problem is with "those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits." Or to use other words of his: "I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity ... This book doesn't deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity." (pp. 15-16)
In other words, Atzmon is a universalist who does not like the particularism that characterizes Zionism and which has a rich tradition among Jews and any number of other groups. He is the kind of person who intensely dislikes nationalism of any sort. Princeton professor Richard Falk captures this point nicely in his own blurb for the book, where he writes: "Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard-core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity."
Atzmon's basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists. Atzmon will have none of this, which is why he labels himself a self-hating Jew. He fervently believes that Jews are not the "Chosen People" and that they should not privilege their "Jewish-ness" over their other human traits. Moreover, he believes that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem, as they "can never be blended together into a lucid and coherent worldview." (p. 86) One can argue that his perspective is dead wrong, or maintain that it is a lovely idea in principle but just not the way the real world works. But it is hardly an illegitimate or ignoble way of thinking about humanity.
To take this matter a step further, Atzmon's book is really all about Jewish identity. He notes that "the disappearance of the ghetto and its maternal qualities" in the wake of the French Revolution caused "an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society." (p. 104) He believes that this crisis, about which there is an extensive literature, is still at the center of Jewish life today. In effect, Atzmon is telling the story of how he wrestled with his own identity over time and what he thinks is wrong with how most Jews self-identify today. It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the "Holocaust religion," Zionism, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well. Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity.
In sum, Goldberg's charge that Atzman is a Holocaust denier or an apologist for Hitler is baseless. Nor is Atzmon an anti-Semite. He has controversial views for sure and he sometimes employs overly provocative language. But there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, "should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike." Regarding Goldberg's insinuation that I have any sympathy for Holocaust denial and am an anti-Semite, it is just another attempt in his longstanding effort to smear Steve Walt and me.
Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote -- a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side -- but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.
The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg's sally, and he sent the following reply.
John Mearsheimer writes:
In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.
His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:
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.
The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book -- what blurber does? -- but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.
Goldberg maintains that Atzmon is a categorically reprehensible person, and accuses him of being a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler. These are two of the most devastating charges that can be leveled against anyone. According to Goldberg, the mere fact that I blurbed Atzmon's book is decisive evidence that I share Atzmon's supposedly odious views. This indictment of me is captured in the title of Goldberg's piece: "John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist."
This charge is so ludicrous that it is hard to know where to start my response. But let me begin by noting that I have taught countless University of Chicago students over the years about the Holocaust and about Hitler's role in it. Nobody who has been in my classes would ever accuse me of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers or making excuses for what Hitler did to European Jews. Not surprisingly, those loathsome charges have never been leveled against me until Goldberg did so last week.
Equally important, Gilad Atzmon is neither a Holocaust denier nor an apologist for Hitler. Consider the following excerpt from The Wandering Who?
As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. . . . It was actually the internalization of the meaning of the Holocaust that transformed me into a strong opponent of Israel and Jewish-ness. It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return" (pp. 185-186).
It seems unequivocally clear to me from those sentences that Atzmon firmly believes that the Holocaust occurred and was a horrific tragedy. I cannot find evidence in his book or in his other writings that indicate he "traffics in Holocaust denial."
The real issue for Atzmon -- and this is reflected in the excerpt from his blog post that Goldberg quotes from -- is how the Holocaust is interpreted and used by the Jewish establishment. Atzmon has three complaints. He believes that it is used to justify Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians and to fend off criticism of Israel. This is an argument made by many other writers, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, historian Peter Novick, and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. Atzmon also rejects the claim that the Holocaust is exceptional, which is a position that other respected scholars have held. There have been other genocides in world history, after all, and this whole issue was actively debated in the negotiations that led to the building of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Whatever one thinks of Atzmon's position on this subject, it is hardly beyond the pale.
Finally, Atzmon is angry about the fact that it is difficult to raise certain questions about the causes and the conduct of the Holocaust without being personally attacked. These are all defensible if controversial positions to hold, which is not to say one has to agree with any of them. But in no way is he questioning that the Holocaust happened or denying its importance. In fact, his view is clear from one of Atzmon's sentences that Goldberg quotes: "We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place." Note that Atzmon is talking about "the holocaust" in a way that makes it clear he has no doubts about its occurrence, and the passage from The Wandering Who? cited above makes it clear that he has no doubts about its importance or its tragic dimensions; he merely believes it should be seen in a different way. Again, one need not agree with Atzmon to recognize that Goldberg has badly misrepresented his position.
There is also no evidence that I could find in The Wandering Who? to support Goldberg's claim that Atzmon is an apologist for Hitler or that he believes "Jews persecuted Hitler" and in so doing helped trigger the Holocaust. There is actually little discussion of Hitler in Atzmon's book, and the only discussion of interactions between Hitler and the Jews concerns the efforts of German Zionists to work out a modus vivendi with the Nazis. (pp. 162-165) This is why Goldberg is forced to go to one of Atzmon's blog posts to make the case that he is an apologist for Hitler.
Before I examine the substance of that charge, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed directly. Goldberg's indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who? Indeed, Goldberg's blog post is silent on whether he has actually read the book. If he did read it, he apparently could not find any evidence to support his indictment of Atzmon. Instead, he relied exclusively on evidence culled from Atzmon's own blog postings. That is why Goldberg's assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon's book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon.
This tactic puts me in a difficult position. I was asked to review Atzmon's book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon's blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.
Goldberg, however, has shifted the focus onto what Atzmon has written on his blog. I discuss a couple of examples below, but I will not defend his blog output in detail for two reasons. First, I do not know what Atzmon may have said in all of his past blog posts and other writings or in the various talks that he has given over the years. Second, what he says in those places is not relevant to what I did, which was simply to read and react to his book.
Let me now turn to the specific claim that Atzmon is an "apologist for Hitler." Again, I am somewhat reluctant to do this, because this charge forces me to defend what Atzmon said in one of his blog posts. But given the prominence of the charge in Goldberg's indictment of Atzmon (and me), I cannot let it pass.
Plus, I see that Walter Russell Mead, who is also fond of smearing Steve Walt and me, has put this charge up in bright lights on his own blog. Picking up on Goldberg's original post, Mead describes Atzmon's argument this way: "poor Adolf Hitler's actions against German Jews only came after US Jews called a boycott on German goods following Hitler's appointment as German Chancellor. Gosh -- if it weren't for those pushy, aggressive Jews and their annoying boycotts, the Holocaust might not have happened!"
It is hard to imagine any sane person making such an argument, and Atzmon never does. Goldberg refers to a blog post that Atzmon wrote on March 25, 2010, written in response to news at the time that AIPAC had "decided to mount pressure" on President Obama. After describing what was happening with Obama, Atzmon notes that this kind of behavior is hardly unprecedented. In his words, "Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even superpowers." There is no question that this statement is accurate and not even all that controversial; Tom Friedman said as much in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.
In the second half of this post, Atzmon says that AIPAC's behavior reminds him of the March 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods, which preceded Hitler's decision on March 28, 1933 to boycott Jewish stores and goods. His basic point is that the Jewish boycott had negative consequences, which it did. In Atzmon's narrative -- and this is a very important theme in his book -- Jews are not simply passive victims of other people's actions. On the contrary, he believes Jews have considerable agency and their actions are not always wise. One can agree or disagree with his views about the wisdom of the Jewish boycott -- and I happen to think he's wrong about it -- but he is not arguing that the Jews were "persecuting Hitler" and that this alleged "persecution" led to the Holocaust. In fact, he says nothing about the Holocaust in his post and he certainly does not justify in any way the murder of six million Jews.
Let me make one additional point about Goldberg's mining of Atzmon's blog posts. Goldberg ends his attack on me with the following quotation from a Feb. 19 blog post by Atzmon: "I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany." That quotation certainly makes Atzmon look like he has lost his mind and that nothing he has written could be trusted. But Goldberg has misrepresented what Atzmon really said, which is one of his standard tactics. Specifically, he quotes only part of a sentence from Atzmon's blog post; but when you look at the entire sentence, you see that Atzmon is making a different, and far more nuanced point. The entire sentence reads: "Indeed, I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany, for unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is a democracy and that implies that Israeli citizens are complicit in Israeli atrocities." This is not an argument I would make, but what Atzmon is saying is quite different from the way Goldberg portrays it.
Finally, let me address the charge that Atzmon himself is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. The implication of this accusation, of course, is that I must be an anti-Semite too (I can't be a self-hating Jew) because I agreed to blurb Atzmon's book. I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, although that charge is thrown around so carelessly these days that it has regrettably lost much of its meaning. If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish -- no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously.
The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes. He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza. What is going on here?
The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the "Chosen People." His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who "happen to be of Jewish origin." Rather, his problem is with "those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits." Or to use other words of his: "I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity ... This book doesn't deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity." (pp. 15-16)
In other words, Atzmon is a universalist who does not like the particularism that characterizes Zionism and which has a rich tradition among Jews and any number of other groups. He is the kind of person who intensely dislikes nationalism of any sort. Princeton professor Richard Falk captures this point nicely in his own blurb for the book, where he writes: "Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard-core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity."
Atzmon's basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists. Atzmon will have none of this, which is why he labels himself a self-hating Jew. He fervently believes that Jews are not the "Chosen People" and that they should not privilege their "Jewish-ness" over their other human traits. Moreover, he believes that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem, as they "can never be blended together into a lucid and coherent worldview." (p. 86) One can argue that his perspective is dead wrong, or maintain that it is a lovely idea in principle but just not the way the real world works. But it is hardly an illegitimate or ignoble way of thinking about humanity.
To take this matter a step further, Atzmon's book is really all about Jewish identity. He notes that "the disappearance of the ghetto and its maternal qualities" in the wake of the French Revolution caused "an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society." (p. 104) He believes that this crisis, about which there is an extensive literature, is still at the center of Jewish life today. In effect, Atzmon is telling the story of how he wrestled with his own identity over time and what he thinks is wrong with how most Jews self-identify today. It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the "Holocaust religion," Zionism, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well. Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity.
In sum, Goldberg's charge that Atzman is a Holocaust denier or an apologist for Hitler is baseless. Nor is Atzmon an anti-Semite. He has controversial views for sure and he sometimes employs overly provocative language. But there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, "should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike." Regarding Goldberg's insinuation that I have any sympathy for Holocaust denial and am an anti-Semite, it is just another attempt in his longstanding effort to smear Steve Walt and me.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Open society and the enemy within
From Gilad Atzmon:
This film is dedicated to the so-called Jewish "anti"-Zionists who were harassing and distracting 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!
This film is dedicated to the so-called Jewish "anti"-Zionists who were harassing and distracting 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!
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Clandestine Zionist operation exposed
From Gilad Atzmon:
Below you will find an embarrassing 'call for action' circulated (selectively) by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a prominent UK Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ and one of the founders of 'J- Big', an exclusive Jewish cell, advocating the boycott of Israeli goods.
Wimborne-Idrissi's intentions are ambitious: she wants to form an 'Anti Atzmon party' or, in her words- “We are organising a meeting to discuss this developing situation (Atzmon’s popularity), and to arrive we hope at an agreed strategy for countering it.” You may as well notice that this Judeo-centric sectarian attempt is taking place at a time Palestinians seem to be united.
Wimborne-Idrissi’s argument is staggering -- on the one hand she is criticising me for suggesting that "Jewishness is a tendency towards segregation" -- and yet, her call for action ends with the following sentence: “this invitation is not intended for wider circulation.” It is obviously clear that instead of a ‘wider and open Palestinian solidarity discourse’, the Jewish ethnic campaigner actually prefers to operate within small segregated cells as I suggested above.
Wimborne-Idrissi is devastated by the success of our May 3rd Panel Event, "Zionism, Jewishness and Israel". While our panel discussion was a public event, open to all, Wimborne-Idrissi and her half a dozen Jewish ‘comrades’ seem to prefer to operate 'underground', in a clandestine mode.
It is obvious to all that their defeat is colossal. I wonder, why don’t they just admit it and move on?
Let’s face it. Wimborne-Idrissi is at least correct in some regards -- I do indeed argue that:
1. “Jewishness is a tendency towards segregation and a form of a supremacist ideology fuelled by choseness.”
2. "Jewish Marxism is a very strange form of national Socialism."
3. I do believe that Zionism is a continuation of Jewishness (a tendency towards segregation and a form of a supremacist ideology fuelled by choseness).
4. I forcefully argue that Zionism is not colonialism.
And yet, not one of the above statements are anti Semitic or racist -- As you may note, there is not one single reference to Jews as a people, a race, as a group united 'by blood lines', or collection of genes. Instead, I criticise Jewish ideology. And In case Wimborne Idrissi is willfully missing something, criticising ideology is still actually considered to be a legitimate endeavour until further notice.
But I suppose that Wimborne-Idrissi considers that Jews as well as Jewish ideology are beyond criticism. And that is clearly just another symptom of her deeply supremacist worldview.
Shamelessly, Wimborne-Idrissi writes, “those who equate Zionism with Jewishness do not belong in the movement.” Once again a Jewish ethnic activist seems to suggest to us what the Palestinian solidarity movement is all about. Sadly enough, Wimborne-Idrissi refuses to admit the obvious -- that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State. Israel also drops bombs on Gazans from planes decorated with Jewish symbols. Surely then, Wimborne-Idrissi had better explain to us, once and for all; why can’t we then question what Jewishness stands for?
But I guess that I know the answer: Wimborne-Idrissi, understands that any criticism of Jewishness will also apply to her own ‘Jews Only’ political cell, for -- categorically and by definition -- both Israel and Wimborne-Idrissi’s 'J-Big' are exclusive Jewish clubs. They are both driven by the idea that being Jewish is somehow unique: otherwise, I cannot understand why Wimborne-Idrissi refuses to boycott Humus Sabra together with the Goyim.
It is important to mention that neither I nor anyone else in our movement has ever condemned ‘Jews within the movement and those who work with them’. No one is criticising Jews as people. And no one -- except the Jews only cells -- believes in trying to silence anyone. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe that vibrant discourse is crucial for any political or ideological movement.
And I would support Wimborne- Idrissi -- once she decides to engage in an open debate instead of conspiratorial clandestine strategies.
I am afraid that I have some bad news for Wimborne-Idrissi & Co. Being an ex-Jew and an independent thinker, I am not a member of any synagogue or Trotsky-ite congregation. From a Jewish perspective then, I am untouchable. The large variety of old Jewish tactics such as Excommunication and Exclusion have already proved to be futile with me. The few Jews in this movement who attempt to perform these old Middle ages Rabbinical rites and strategies against me will achieve little, besides exposing themselves for who they are and what they are, i.e. crypto Zionists.
And I wish them luck.
As I was about to publish this post, a mole within the ‘progressive’ Jewish league sent me the date and location of the first 'anti-Atzmon gathering'. The meeting is proposed for Saturday 18/6 at 3pm. Venue is Lucas Arms,245a Gray's Inn Road, London WC1
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/clubs_bars/venue-1583.php
I would love to be there. I would be the perfect leader for this new Jewish revolutionary party. As a self-hater, I also have a lot of problems with Atzmon. Every night when I am desperate to go to bed and close my eyes, he keeps on writing about Israel, AIPAC, Lord Levy, Jews Only Clubs and so on. I am sick of it, I have been stuck with him for too long. Considering my intimate and deep knowledge of this character, I should probably be the secretary of the new party. But unfortunately, I will be with Atzmon that Afternoon. He is performing that day in front of those ‘clueless anti Semite idiots’ who for some bizarre reason love him, oppose tribalism, defy racism and follow his universal ethical dribble.
End
The following is an email sent by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi to selected 'revolutionary' chosen members within the UK ‘anti Zionist’ network.
Dear xxx
Countering racism, fighting Zionism
A potent Zionist weapon in undermining the Palestinian cause is the
accusation of anti-Semitism. While the pro-Palestinian cause is
overwhelmingly anti-racist and does not tolerate anti-Semitism, there
have been some signs recently that individuals promoting views that
can only be viewed as anti-Semitic have been gaining an audience
within the solidarity movement.
As just one example, a number of activists were present at a meeting
in London on May 3 (http://goo.gl/sdRoz) at which they applauded a
platform speaker explaining his view that "Jewishness is the real
problem." “Jewishness”, he said, was “a tendency towards segregation"
and a form of “supremacist ideology fuelled by chosenness”. He
attributed to "Jewish Marxists . . . a very strange form of national
socialism".
We are organizing a meeting to discuss this developing situation, and
to arrive we hope at an agreed strategy for countering it.
There is a strange symmetry. Zionists equate Judaism and being Jewish
with their own racist political philosophy. It is embodied in the
State of Israel as ' the state of the Jews '. They allege that
anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. Any Jew who does not agree is a
'self-hater'. Likewise racists and religious extremists also equate
Zionism with Judaism and being Jewish, and use the atrocities being
committed on behalf of the Zionist project as a stick with which to
beat Jews, regardless of their views about Israel.
The equation Jew = Zionist is a lie promoted by the state of Israel
to boost its international support and so weaken the Palestinian
cause. For supporters of Palestine to blame 'Jewishness' (rather than
Western colonialism) for the oppression of Palestinians is a
potentially damaging diversion from the real argument. Any significant
spread of this viewpoint would give some credibility to the Zionists'
allegations of anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, and
so divide and discredit it.
Proponents of such ideas pose as friends of Palestine while attacking
and condemning Jews within the movement and those who work with them.
Behind such views lies a sinister, far-right dimension exposed, for
example, in these links: http://goo.gl/PGruW
Those who equate Zionism with Jewishness do not belong in the
movement. Their political home is elsewhere -- among fellow racists.
In order to ensure that this is better understood among the whole
community of activists and sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, we
propose to produce a briefing document examining and exposing these
destructive, anti-Semitic arguments.
The purpose of this message is to invite you and/or a representative
of your organisation to join us at a meeting to discuss the content of
such a document and how it could best be used. Please reply to the
sender. This invitation is not intended for wider circulation.
The meeting is proposed for Saturday 18/6 at 3pm. Venue is Lucas Arms,
245a Gray's Inn Road, London WC1
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/clubs_bars/venue-1583.php
In solidarity,
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
Below you will find an embarrassing 'call for action' circulated (selectively) by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a prominent UK Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ and one of the founders of 'J- Big', an exclusive Jewish cell, advocating the boycott of Israeli goods.
Wimborne-Idrissi's intentions are ambitious: she wants to form an 'Anti Atzmon party' or, in her words- “We are organising a meeting to discuss this developing situation (Atzmon’s popularity), and to arrive we hope at an agreed strategy for countering it.” You may as well notice that this Judeo-centric sectarian attempt is taking place at a time Palestinians seem to be united.
Wimborne-Idrissi’s argument is staggering -- on the one hand she is criticising me for suggesting that "Jewishness is a tendency towards segregation" -- and yet, her call for action ends with the following sentence: “this invitation is not intended for wider circulation.” It is obviously clear that instead of a ‘wider and open Palestinian solidarity discourse’, the Jewish ethnic campaigner actually prefers to operate within small segregated cells as I suggested above.
Wimborne-Idrissi is devastated by the success of our May 3rd Panel Event, "Zionism, Jewishness and Israel". While our panel discussion was a public event, open to all, Wimborne-Idrissi and her half a dozen Jewish ‘comrades’ seem to prefer to operate 'underground', in a clandestine mode.
It is obvious to all that their defeat is colossal. I wonder, why don’t they just admit it and move on?
Let’s face it. Wimborne-Idrissi is at least correct in some regards -- I do indeed argue that:
1. “Jewishness is a tendency towards segregation and a form of a supremacist ideology fuelled by choseness.”
2. "Jewish Marxism is a very strange form of national Socialism."
3. I do believe that Zionism is a continuation of Jewishness (a tendency towards segregation and a form of a supremacist ideology fuelled by choseness).
4. I forcefully argue that Zionism is not colonialism.
And yet, not one of the above statements are anti Semitic or racist -- As you may note, there is not one single reference to Jews as a people, a race, as a group united 'by blood lines', or collection of genes. Instead, I criticise Jewish ideology. And In case Wimborne Idrissi is willfully missing something, criticising ideology is still actually considered to be a legitimate endeavour until further notice.
But I suppose that Wimborne-Idrissi considers that Jews as well as Jewish ideology are beyond criticism. And that is clearly just another symptom of her deeply supremacist worldview.
Shamelessly, Wimborne-Idrissi writes, “those who equate Zionism with Jewishness do not belong in the movement.” Once again a Jewish ethnic activist seems to suggest to us what the Palestinian solidarity movement is all about. Sadly enough, Wimborne-Idrissi refuses to admit the obvious -- that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State. Israel also drops bombs on Gazans from planes decorated with Jewish symbols. Surely then, Wimborne-Idrissi had better explain to us, once and for all; why can’t we then question what Jewishness stands for?
But I guess that I know the answer: Wimborne-Idrissi, understands that any criticism of Jewishness will also apply to her own ‘Jews Only’ political cell, for -- categorically and by definition -- both Israel and Wimborne-Idrissi’s 'J-Big' are exclusive Jewish clubs. They are both driven by the idea that being Jewish is somehow unique: otherwise, I cannot understand why Wimborne-Idrissi refuses to boycott Humus Sabra together with the Goyim.
It is important to mention that neither I nor anyone else in our movement has ever condemned ‘Jews within the movement and those who work with them’. No one is criticising Jews as people. And no one -- except the Jews only cells -- believes in trying to silence anyone. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe that vibrant discourse is crucial for any political or ideological movement.
And I would support Wimborne- Idrissi -- once she decides to engage in an open debate instead of conspiratorial clandestine strategies.
I am afraid that I have some bad news for Wimborne-Idrissi & Co. Being an ex-Jew and an independent thinker, I am not a member of any synagogue or Trotsky-ite congregation. From a Jewish perspective then, I am untouchable. The large variety of old Jewish tactics such as Excommunication and Exclusion have already proved to be futile with me. The few Jews in this movement who attempt to perform these old Middle ages Rabbinical rites and strategies against me will achieve little, besides exposing themselves for who they are and what they are, i.e. crypto Zionists.
And I wish them luck.
As I was about to publish this post, a mole within the ‘progressive’ Jewish league sent me the date and location of the first 'anti-Atzmon gathering'. The meeting is proposed for Saturday 18/6 at 3pm. Venue is Lucas Arms,245a Gray's Inn Road, London WC1
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/clubs_bars/venue-1583.php
I would love to be there. I would be the perfect leader for this new Jewish revolutionary party. As a self-hater, I also have a lot of problems with Atzmon. Every night when I am desperate to go to bed and close my eyes, he keeps on writing about Israel, AIPAC, Lord Levy, Jews Only Clubs and so on. I am sick of it, I have been stuck with him for too long. Considering my intimate and deep knowledge of this character, I should probably be the secretary of the new party. But unfortunately, I will be with Atzmon that Afternoon. He is performing that day in front of those ‘clueless anti Semite idiots’ who for some bizarre reason love him, oppose tribalism, defy racism and follow his universal ethical dribble.
End
The following is an email sent by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi to selected 'revolutionary' chosen members within the UK ‘anti Zionist’ network.
Dear xxx
Countering racism, fighting Zionism
A potent Zionist weapon in undermining the Palestinian cause is the
accusation of anti-Semitism. While the pro-Palestinian cause is
overwhelmingly anti-racist and does not tolerate anti-Semitism, there
have been some signs recently that individuals promoting views that
can only be viewed as anti-Semitic have been gaining an audience
within the solidarity movement.
As just one example, a number of activists were present at a meeting
in London on May 3 (http://goo.gl/sdRoz) at which they applauded a
platform speaker explaining his view that "Jewishness is the real
problem." “Jewishness”, he said, was “a tendency towards segregation"
and a form of “supremacist ideology fuelled by chosenness”. He
attributed to "Jewish Marxists . . . a very strange form of national
socialism".
We are organizing a meeting to discuss this developing situation, and
to arrive we hope at an agreed strategy for countering it.
There is a strange symmetry. Zionists equate Judaism and being Jewish
with their own racist political philosophy. It is embodied in the
State of Israel as ' the state of the Jews '. They allege that
anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. Any Jew who does not agree is a
'self-hater'. Likewise racists and religious extremists also equate
Zionism with Judaism and being Jewish, and use the atrocities being
committed on behalf of the Zionist project as a stick with which to
beat Jews, regardless of their views about Israel.
The equation Jew = Zionist is a lie promoted by the state of Israel
to boost its international support and so weaken the Palestinian
cause. For supporters of Palestine to blame 'Jewishness' (rather than
Western colonialism) for the oppression of Palestinians is a
potentially damaging diversion from the real argument. Any significant
spread of this viewpoint would give some credibility to the Zionists'
allegations of anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement, and
so divide and discredit it.
Proponents of such ideas pose as friends of Palestine while attacking
and condemning Jews within the movement and those who work with them.
Behind such views lies a sinister, far-right dimension exposed, for
example, in these links: http://goo.gl/PGruW
Those who equate Zionism with Jewishness do not belong in the
movement. Their political home is elsewhere -- among fellow racists.
In order to ensure that this is better understood among the whole
community of activists and sympathizers with the Palestinian cause, we
propose to produce a briefing document examining and exposing these
destructive, anti-Semitic arguments.
The purpose of this message is to invite you and/or a representative
of your organisation to join us at a meeting to discuss the content of
such a document and how it could best be used. Please reply to the
sender. This invitation is not intended for wider circulation.
The meeting is proposed for Saturday 18/6 at 3pm. Venue is Lucas Arms,
245a Gray's Inn Road, London WC1
http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/clubs_bars/venue-1583.php
In solidarity,
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Open letter to Tony Blair from his sister-in-law
By Lauren Booth
Dear Tony,
Congratulations on your political memoir becoming an instant bestseller. I’m in Iran and have the only copy in the country. I can tell you, it’s so fiercely fought over, it’s worth its weight in waepons of mass destruction’s. Note to Random House: have ‘A Journey’ translated into Farsi and Arabic asap, it’ll fly off the shelves in this part of the world.
Tony, yesterday [3 September] I went the Al Quds [Jerusalem] day protest in Tehran. You may have heard of it? It’s the rally where Iranians gather to protest against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem.
I’m being sarcastic by asking if you’ve heard of Al Quds day, because I know you have. It is after all your very worst nightmare right? It must be horrifying with the ‘world view,’ you express in your memoirs to watch scenes on the BBC news showing the precise meeting point of politics and Islam.
Personally I’ve never understood this fear of ‘political Islam’ it seems to me that religious people should always be educated on world events rather than kept in ignorance like say, Mid West Christian Zionists in the US who can’t even find their home city on a map of their state.
Anyway, yesterday, I stood in the midst of more than one million Iranian Muslims all chanting in unison ‘Marg Bar Isre-hell!’ and ‘Marg Bar Am-ri-ca!’ You know what that means Tony I’m sure ; ‘Down with Israel, down with America’. The men, women and children around me withstood a day of no water and no food (it’s called Ramadan, Tony, it’s a fast). Coping with hunger and thirst in the hundred degrees heat, as if it were nothing. They can withstand deprivation in the Muslim world, and think it a proud thing to suffer in order to express their fury at the continued slaughter of Palestinians. To protest the theft of what little remains of Palestinian land by settlers. To protest the blockade of Gaza causing immense suffering to millions.
Now, the Christian Zionists in the US and the Jewish Zionists in Israel would have you believe that I was am in danger in Iran, especially on a day like Al Quds. Well here again Tony, you’ve been fed and have consumed in its entirety, a massive lie. The lie that says that when Muslims march they march against infidels (like me I suppose) in some kind of Middle Eastern homage to the ancient crusades.
Yet the crusade Tony is yours, not ‘theirs.’
Today I spoke with many women on the Tehran protest. One mother who wept, not out of hatred for ‘the West’ but out of empathy for the mothers of Rafah, Khan Younis, Nablus and Jenin. Do you recognise these place names Tony, as Middle East peace envoy you really should. Israel has massacred children in all of these cities in recent years. Didn’t you know?
Anyway the women I met were gentle, frustrated by the refusal of the international community to stop the arrests of Palestinian children, to stop the routine bombing of the tunnels (the main access still for food and essential items in the Gaza strip). We embraced in the streets of Tehran like sisters. Not in Islam Tony, but in the fight against your brand of extremism and prejudice.
And today when the streets of London reverberate with cries of ‘Allahuakbar!’ and ‘Down Down Israel.’ Christians and Jews will join the thunderous cries of ‘Down Down Israel, marching against the ‘political’ Muslims you say you fear so much, That you would have me fear too if you could.
Having spent a good deal of time in Palestine in recent years, certainly more than you and your the ‘peace envoy’ supposedly. It repulsed me to read your blatant swallowing of the Israeli narrative regarding Palestine and its people.
The ‘conflict’ between Palestine and Israel is according to you all about religion and has nothing at all to do with the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population, nor the degredation of those who remain by their Israeli occupiers. You say that Arabs have and always will see ‘Jews’ as enemies. For God’s sake Tony do your history. And if you’re going to run a ‘Faith Foundation’ then better gen up on Islam 101 don’t you think? Did your pals in Tel Aviv forget to tell you how many thousands of Jews lived in Historic Palestine in harmony with their Arab neighbours before 1948? Do you really not know that even today tens of thousand of Jews reside contentedly in Iran?
I’ve sat with dozens and dozens of Muslim families, those whose children have been burned by Israeli/US phosphorous bombs. Those who are still suffering hunger due to the Israel siege of Gaza. Those who have lived through the early days of sanctions against Iran when they needed food vouchers just to live. And every single Muslim in these suffering families has the same message ; ‘We don’t hate anyone for their race or their religion. We cannot hate Jews they are in our holy book it is against the teachings of the Koran.’ But Tony let me ask you this. Why should any people Muslim or otherwise have NO right to justice and NO right to challenge an evil being done to them and their children? or to those who share a set of common beliefs? Do you have no understanding of what it is like to live in Gaza? Under siege, attacked with chemical weapons, your children’s schools razed to the ground by Israeli missiles, your hospitals shelled, your electricity limited, your water undrinkable?
Or do understand the ‘idea’ of the hardships suffered by millions in the Middle East as a direct result of your support for Israel and just think they deserve it?
In your book you say you knew full well how many Beirut homes were flattened, how many civilians died in Lebanon in 2006. Yet you dismiss Lebanese rage about Israeli land theft of ‘Shebas Farm’ as being an irrelevance, about a ‘tiny’ amount of land. You cannot see it as part of an attack on Lebanese life as a whole, by it’s heavily armed aggressive neighbour. You see it as: ‘Israel is attacked. Israel strikes back.’ As if Israel lives in placid peace, being kindly to all around it in between these massacres.
As other world leaders came out to demand Israel immediately cease its 2006 bombing raids on Lebanese cities, you stayed silent.
‘If I had condemned Israel’ you say ‘I would have been more than dishonest. It would have undermined my world view.’
Your world view that Muslims are mad, bad, dangerous to know. A contagion to be contained. Your final chapter is a must read here in the Middle East Tony, congratulations! For it lays out the ‘them’ and ‘us’ agenda of your friends in Washington and Tel Aviv and in David Milliband, the ambassador of Zionism that he is.
In the final chapter you say; ‘we need a religious counter attack’ against Islam. And by ‘Islam’ you mean the Al Quds rallies, the Palestinian intifada (based on an anti Apartheid struggle Tony, NOT religious bigotry), against every Arab who fails to raise a flag as the F16s rain on their homes and refugee camps and breaks out singing ‘Imagine all the people...’
When you say ‘extremism’ must be ‘controlled and beaten’ you mean the message of solidarity shared by Non Muslims alike on the streets of London and across the world today, joining the Al Quds day protests.
‘Not only extremism must be defeated’ you say but ‘the narrative that has to be assailed.’
Iran is indeed the place where Islamic tradition meets political action.
But I’m not afraid here Tony. The people are kind, friendly, full of good humour.
They are also highly aware of the history of this region, the wrongs perpetrated by Israel against Palestine and the political machinations of the US and the UK governments.
And as your book remains highly sought after here in Tehran. It’s that and not Islam, that you and your Israeli chums should be afraid of because it reveals you in all your ignorant glory.
Lauren Booth
Broadcaster and Journalist
Mail on Sunday
Press TV, UK
Dear Tony,
Congratulations on your political memoir becoming an instant bestseller. I’m in Iran and have the only copy in the country. I can tell you, it’s so fiercely fought over, it’s worth its weight in waepons of mass destruction’s. Note to Random House: have ‘A Journey’ translated into Farsi and Arabic asap, it’ll fly off the shelves in this part of the world.
Tony, yesterday [3 September] I went the Al Quds [Jerusalem] day protest in Tehran. You may have heard of it? It’s the rally where Iranians gather to protest against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem.
I’m being sarcastic by asking if you’ve heard of Al Quds day, because I know you have. It is after all your very worst nightmare right? It must be horrifying with the ‘world view,’ you express in your memoirs to watch scenes on the BBC news showing the precise meeting point of politics and Islam.
Personally I’ve never understood this fear of ‘political Islam’ it seems to me that religious people should always be educated on world events rather than kept in ignorance like say, Mid West Christian Zionists in the US who can’t even find their home city on a map of their state.
Anyway, yesterday, I stood in the midst of more than one million Iranian Muslims all chanting in unison ‘Marg Bar Isre-hell!’ and ‘Marg Bar Am-ri-ca!’ You know what that means Tony I’m sure ; ‘Down with Israel, down with America’. The men, women and children around me withstood a day of no water and no food (it’s called Ramadan, Tony, it’s a fast). Coping with hunger and thirst in the hundred degrees heat, as if it were nothing. They can withstand deprivation in the Muslim world, and think it a proud thing to suffer in order to express their fury at the continued slaughter of Palestinians. To protest the theft of what little remains of Palestinian land by settlers. To protest the blockade of Gaza causing immense suffering to millions.
Now, the Christian Zionists in the US and the Jewish Zionists in Israel would have you believe that I was am in danger in Iran, especially on a day like Al Quds. Well here again Tony, you’ve been fed and have consumed in its entirety, a massive lie. The lie that says that when Muslims march they march against infidels (like me I suppose) in some kind of Middle Eastern homage to the ancient crusades.
Yet the crusade Tony is yours, not ‘theirs.’
Today I spoke with many women on the Tehran protest. One mother who wept, not out of hatred for ‘the West’ but out of empathy for the mothers of Rafah, Khan Younis, Nablus and Jenin. Do you recognise these place names Tony, as Middle East peace envoy you really should. Israel has massacred children in all of these cities in recent years. Didn’t you know?
Anyway the women I met were gentle, frustrated by the refusal of the international community to stop the arrests of Palestinian children, to stop the routine bombing of the tunnels (the main access still for food and essential items in the Gaza strip). We embraced in the streets of Tehran like sisters. Not in Islam Tony, but in the fight against your brand of extremism and prejudice.
And today when the streets of London reverberate with cries of ‘Allahuakbar!’ and ‘Down Down Israel.’ Christians and Jews will join the thunderous cries of ‘Down Down Israel, marching against the ‘political’ Muslims you say you fear so much, That you would have me fear too if you could.
Having spent a good deal of time in Palestine in recent years, certainly more than you and your the ‘peace envoy’ supposedly. It repulsed me to read your blatant swallowing of the Israeli narrative regarding Palestine and its people.
The ‘conflict’ between Palestine and Israel is according to you all about religion and has nothing at all to do with the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population, nor the degredation of those who remain by their Israeli occupiers. You say that Arabs have and always will see ‘Jews’ as enemies. For God’s sake Tony do your history. And if you’re going to run a ‘Faith Foundation’ then better gen up on Islam 101 don’t you think? Did your pals in Tel Aviv forget to tell you how many thousands of Jews lived in Historic Palestine in harmony with their Arab neighbours before 1948? Do you really not know that even today tens of thousand of Jews reside contentedly in Iran?
I’ve sat with dozens and dozens of Muslim families, those whose children have been burned by Israeli/US phosphorous bombs. Those who are still suffering hunger due to the Israel siege of Gaza. Those who have lived through the early days of sanctions against Iran when they needed food vouchers just to live. And every single Muslim in these suffering families has the same message ; ‘We don’t hate anyone for their race or their religion. We cannot hate Jews they are in our holy book it is against the teachings of the Koran.’ But Tony let me ask you this. Why should any people Muslim or otherwise have NO right to justice and NO right to challenge an evil being done to them and their children? or to those who share a set of common beliefs? Do you have no understanding of what it is like to live in Gaza? Under siege, attacked with chemical weapons, your children’s schools razed to the ground by Israeli missiles, your hospitals shelled, your electricity limited, your water undrinkable?
Or do understand the ‘idea’ of the hardships suffered by millions in the Middle East as a direct result of your support for Israel and just think they deserve it?
In your book you say you knew full well how many Beirut homes were flattened, how many civilians died in Lebanon in 2006. Yet you dismiss Lebanese rage about Israeli land theft of ‘Shebas Farm’ as being an irrelevance, about a ‘tiny’ amount of land. You cannot see it as part of an attack on Lebanese life as a whole, by it’s heavily armed aggressive neighbour. You see it as: ‘Israel is attacked. Israel strikes back.’ As if Israel lives in placid peace, being kindly to all around it in between these massacres.
As other world leaders came out to demand Israel immediately cease its 2006 bombing raids on Lebanese cities, you stayed silent.
‘If I had condemned Israel’ you say ‘I would have been more than dishonest. It would have undermined my world view.’
Your world view that Muslims are mad, bad, dangerous to know. A contagion to be contained. Your final chapter is a must read here in the Middle East Tony, congratulations! For it lays out the ‘them’ and ‘us’ agenda of your friends in Washington and Tel Aviv and in David Milliband, the ambassador of Zionism that he is.
In the final chapter you say; ‘we need a religious counter attack’ against Islam. And by ‘Islam’ you mean the Al Quds rallies, the Palestinian intifada (based on an anti Apartheid struggle Tony, NOT religious bigotry), against every Arab who fails to raise a flag as the F16s rain on their homes and refugee camps and breaks out singing ‘Imagine all the people...’
When you say ‘extremism’ must be ‘controlled and beaten’ you mean the message of solidarity shared by Non Muslims alike on the streets of London and across the world today, joining the Al Quds day protests.
‘Not only extremism must be defeated’ you say but ‘the narrative that has to be assailed.’
Iran is indeed the place where Islamic tradition meets political action.
But I’m not afraid here Tony. The people are kind, friendly, full of good humour.
They are also highly aware of the history of this region, the wrongs perpetrated by Israel against Palestine and the political machinations of the US and the UK governments.
And as your book remains highly sought after here in Tehran. It’s that and not Islam, that you and your Israeli chums should be afraid of because it reveals you in all your ignorant glory.
Lauren Booth
Broadcaster and Journalist
Mail on Sunday
Press TV, UK
Monday, 17 May 2010
Saturday, 1 May 2010
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Get ready for another Iraq whitewash
From Gilad Atzmon
The Jerusalem Post reported on 25 November that Sir Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, criticized the appointment of two leading Jewish academics [Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert] to the UK's Iraq Inquiry panel, stating it may upset the balance of the inquiry.
Miles said the two academics were Jewish and that Gilbert was an active Zionist. He also said they were both strong supporters of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Iraq war.
"It is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available," he added. "Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced."
The former ambassador also said that having two historians in a panel of five "seems a lot" and also questioned the Jewish academics' credentials.
The Jerusalem Post reported on 25 November that Sir Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, criticized the appointment of two leading Jewish academics [Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert] to the UK's Iraq Inquiry panel, stating it may upset the balance of the inquiry.
Miles said the two academics were Jewish and that Gilbert was an active Zionist. He also said they were both strong supporters of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Iraq war.
"It is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available," he added. "Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced."
The former ambassador also said that having two historians in a panel of five "seems a lot" and also questioned the Jewish academics' credentials.
In December 2004 Sir Martin, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.To read the full article, click here.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Jewish settler violence leads to the arrest of peace activists
From Neve Gordon:
At dawn the activists arrived. Around 30 Ta’ayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership) and international volunteers came to the Palestinian groves adjacent to the Jewish settlement in Tel-Rumeida, Hebron, to help the landowners pick their olives. Previous attempts by the Palestinian farmers – who live behind fences and are subjected to daily violence – to reach their olive trees had been blocked by the residents of Tel Rumeida, a stronghold of the most militant and extremist Jewish settlers. Even the Israeli police are afraid of these settlers while the military routinely bows down to their commands.
A few days earlier, the activists had been informed that the settlers had entered the groves and had stolen olives from their rightful owners. Complaints to the police were ignored, while the military decided to deny Palestinians all access to the trees.
After meeting their Palestinian partners, the activists began picking the olives. They worked fast and were making considerable progress when four settlers arrived on the scene, and, without warning began beating an international activist and a press photographer, while breaking their cameras.
The settlers had come to the site accompanied by Israeli soldiers, whose job is to protect the settlers from Palestinians. It is therefore not surprising that the soldiers did nothing to prevent the violent attack, did not detain the settlers and even told the settlers that they would do well to hide before the police arrived.
The Ta’ayush activists had already called the police, informing them that the settlers were attacking the olive pickers. This time, the police arrived at the scene fairly quickly, but instead of arresting the belligerent settlers they notified the Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals that they had to leave the area since it was declared a “closed military zone.” Once again the violent oppressors had triumphed.
The activists, however, refused to accept the unjust decision, claiming that it was implemented to stop the Palestinian landowners from reaching their olives. This time the police officers and military thought it appropriate to use force and started evacuating the activists.
Three Ta’ayush activists were arrested, and were taken to a jail, where the police planned to keep them overnight. After midnight, following a request for an urgent hearing their case was brought to court and they were released. Again, the settlers had won the day and managed to prevent the harvest, only this time the event was covered by the press, and the true face of the settlers, police, and military was exposed. Usually, the world is left ignorant of the violence.
Help Ta’ayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership) continue its activities
Ta’ayush Jerusalem has been active since 2001. Over the years we worked together with Palestinian communities in the southern part of the West Bank, including the Palestinians cave-dwellers in the south Hebron hills, with Palestinians living in the city of Hebron, with groups of Palestinians in the Bethlehem area and in East Jerusalem. All these Palestinians are subjected to ongoing violence, including house demolitions, the threat of expulsion, and the confiscation of land. They are living in extreme poverty due to the military siege and Israel’s draconic restriction of their movement.
In order to maintain their weekly activities with the Palestinians, Ta’ayush needs your help.
1. The cost of weekly activities to south Hebron is approximately 1000 Israeli shekels (about $250) for a group of 20 volunteers.
2. The cost for larger-scale activities, which requires renting buses, is 5000 shekels ($1250).
3. Monthly costs for petrol and telephones for Israeli and Palestinian activists – roughly 3000 shekels ($750).
Click here to help.
Ta'ayush – Arab-Jewish Partnership
To read about Neve Gordon’s book (Israel’s Occupation) and more click here.
A few days earlier, the activists had been informed that the settlers had entered the groves and had stolen olives from their rightful owners. Complaints to the police were ignored, while the military decided to deny Palestinians all access to the trees.
After meeting their Palestinian partners, the activists began picking the olives. They worked fast and were making considerable progress when four settlers arrived on the scene, and, without warning began beating an international activist and a press photographer, while breaking their cameras.
The settlers had come to the site accompanied by Israeli soldiers, whose job is to protect the settlers from Palestinians. It is therefore not surprising that the soldiers did nothing to prevent the violent attack, did not detain the settlers and even told the settlers that they would do well to hide before the police arrived.
The Ta’ayush activists had already called the police, informing them that the settlers were attacking the olive pickers. This time, the police arrived at the scene fairly quickly, but instead of arresting the belligerent settlers they notified the Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals that they had to leave the area since it was declared a “closed military zone.” Once again the violent oppressors had triumphed.
The activists, however, refused to accept the unjust decision, claiming that it was implemented to stop the Palestinian landowners from reaching their olives. This time the police officers and military thought it appropriate to use force and started evacuating the activists.
Three Ta’ayush activists were arrested, and were taken to a jail, where the police planned to keep them overnight. After midnight, following a request for an urgent hearing their case was brought to court and they were released. Again, the settlers had won the day and managed to prevent the harvest, only this time the event was covered by the press, and the true face of the settlers, police, and military was exposed. Usually, the world is left ignorant of the violence.
Help Ta’ayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership) continue its activities
Ta’ayush Jerusalem has been active since 2001. Over the years we worked together with Palestinian communities in the southern part of the West Bank, including the Palestinians cave-dwellers in the south Hebron hills, with Palestinians living in the city of Hebron, with groups of Palestinians in the Bethlehem area and in East Jerusalem. All these Palestinians are subjected to ongoing violence, including house demolitions, the threat of expulsion, and the confiscation of land. They are living in extreme poverty due to the military siege and Israel’s draconic restriction of their movement.
In order to maintain their weekly activities with the Palestinians, Ta’ayush needs your help.
1. The cost of weekly activities to south Hebron is approximately 1000 Israeli shekels (about $250) for a group of 20 volunteers.
2. The cost for larger-scale activities, which requires renting buses, is 5000 shekels ($1250).
3. Monthly costs for petrol and telephones for Israeli and Palestinian activists – roughly 3000 shekels ($750).
Click here to help.
Ta'ayush – Arab-Jewish Partnership
To read about Neve Gordon’s book (Israel’s Occupation) and more click here.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Palestinians capture violence of Israeli occupation on video
Palestinians capture violence of Israeli occupation on video
In a graphic and hard-hitting film Peter Beaumont speaks to Palestinians filming abuse from settlers and Israeli armed forces
Peter Beaumont in Ni'ilin
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 July 2008
An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits towards the same family.
Another settler woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"
They are shocking images. There is footage of beatings, their aftermath, and the indifference of Israel's security forces to serious human rights abuses. There is footage too of those same security forces humiliating Palestinians – and most seriously – committing abuses themselves.
They are contained in a growing archive of material assembled by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in a remarkable project called Shooting Back.
The group has supplied almost 100 video cameras to vulnerable Palestinian communities in Hebron, the northern West Bank and elsewhere, to document and gather evidence of assaults and abusive behaviour – largely by settlers.
"We gave the first video camera out in Hebron [in January 2007]," says Diala Shamas a Jerusalem-based researcher with B'Tselem. But the project took off in earnest, however, in January this year.
The video is sometimes chaotic, jumpy. Sometimes only the audio is captured and a pair of soldiers' boots.
But what it documents in all its rough reality is the experience of occupation on a daily basis for the most vulnerable families and communities – giving a voice to those who have been voiceless for so long.
"Right now we have about 100 video cameras," adds Shamas. "The largest number are in the Hebron region where the most frequent complaints of settler attacks are. And recently in the northern area and the region next to the [building] of the [separation] wall where there are demonstrations."
She explains the reason for introducing the Shooting Back project.
"The project started as response to the need to gather evidence. We were constantly filing complaints to no avail on the basis of lack of evidence, or … we don't know the name of the settler.
"Now we are going back and forth with our video-cassettes to [Israeli] police station begging them to press rewind, freeze… it is the bulk of our work. The value of the footage is not only evidential. It also has had a remarkable value in terms of advocacy and campaigning.
'We quickly realised the media value of this footage. It is maybe an overstatement but we started bridging this gap between what was happening in the occupied Palestinian territories and what the Israeli public can see.
"There was a conspiracy of silence surrounding settler violence in particular. This footage is shocking to Israelis.'
And in particular it has been two pieces of video, shot by Palestinians this year and released by B'Tselem, that have gained massive international attention by throwing the issue of human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories back into the spotlight.
The first was footage of a group of four hooded settlers from the settlement of Susya armed with what look like pickaxe handles brutally beating a group of Palestinian farmers.
The second – not taken as part of Shooting Back programme – but supplied to B'Tselem by a 17-year-old schoolgirl from the village of Ni'ilin earlier this month showed a protester against the building of the West Bank barrier on his village's land being shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier with a plastic bullet as he was held blindfold and bound.
The protester was Ashraf Abu Rahma, aged 27. The video was shot by Salam Kanaan aged 17. A constant presence at the demonstrations in the Palestinian villages in the rocky hills of the West Bank, Ashraf is employed by the villages as a watchman on land that is threatened with being taken from the Palestinian villages for the building of the West Bank barrier.
He says he was unaware of what was happening to him until almost the moment before he was shot and wounded in the foot.
It is only when he saw the video too that he was able to understand what happened to him.
Arrested during a demonstration against the West Bank barrier in Ni'ilin on July 7 he recalled last week being almost immediately blindfolded.
"They had rounded up the foreigners [from the International Solidarity Movement] and arrested me and another guy separately.
"They put me in a jeep and started cursing me, hitting me and using bad language in Hebrew and Arabic. It had never occurred to me that they would shoot.
"They held me in the sun for a long time. Later I heard them discussing what they were going to do with me.
"I recall hearing a conversation about how to shoot me. What I recall is the words rubber bullet, rubber bullet... I was blindfolded so I was only aware of their aggression.
"It was only when I saw Salam's video that I understood what happened to me. The guy touching me on my right shoulder before I was shot.
"Just before it happened they said they're going to beat me. They said they were going to send me to hell. They know me because I've been to every protest."
Ashraf claims the abuse continued even when he was on the ground after the shot was fired. "When I asked for medical attention they said: this is nothing, we are going to beat you more."
Although the Israeli military's version is that the shooting was a misunderstanding of the orders given by the lieutenant colonel on the scene — and that the aim was only to "frighten" Ashraf examination of the footage makes it hard to credit that version.
Eyad Haddad, B'Tselem's Ramallah-based field researcher who tracked down the footage of Ashraf's punishment shooting, believes that the project has helped supply crucial evidence in documenting abuses.
"These events that happen are often so distant, or happen in the middle of the night, where there is no media.
"Where we've seen there is a lot of violation from the settlers and especially where there are demonstrations happening and we want to monitor the Israeli soldier's behaviour we are distributing video cameras.
"It is having a good effect and it will stop the violations."
Haddad says the organisation is now trying to encourage people living in areas of confrontation to use their own cameras — if they have them – or mobile phones to film potential abuses that they encounter.
"We want to encourage a mentality to use the cameras. It is the only weapon that the civilians have."
According to Diala Shamas the recent high international profile of the footage shot of the settler beating in Susya and the shooting of Ashraf Abu Rahma has meant that the group has not only been inundated with requests for cameras from Palestinian communities, but those who already have cameras supplied by B'Tselem are shooting more footage of their day to day experiences.
"In the beginning we were almost begging people to take the cameras with them when they went out. They didn't see the use of it. But after the media coverage over the Susya incident… we've gotten a flood of requests for our video cameras. And those who have got the cameras are using them much more frequently."
Commenting on the Ni'ilin footage she said: "It is one of the biggest victories because it is the troops not the settlers. It is not just a 'rotten apple' which is usually the response that we get from the government spokespeople. We didn't give out 100 video cameras to document rotten apples. It was to show there was something systematic happening and it was structural to the occupation.
"In this case it was remarkable that it was actually the soldiers themselves. They did in fact open an investigation.
"They couldn't ignore it."
In a graphic and hard-hitting film Peter Beaumont speaks to Palestinians filming abuse from settlers and Israeli armed forces
Peter Beaumont in Ni'ilin
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 July 2008
An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits towards the same family.
Another settler woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"
They are shocking images. There is footage of beatings, their aftermath, and the indifference of Israel's security forces to serious human rights abuses. There is footage too of those same security forces humiliating Palestinians – and most seriously – committing abuses themselves.
They are contained in a growing archive of material assembled by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in a remarkable project called Shooting Back.
The group has supplied almost 100 video cameras to vulnerable Palestinian communities in Hebron, the northern West Bank and elsewhere, to document and gather evidence of assaults and abusive behaviour – largely by settlers.
"We gave the first video camera out in Hebron [in January 2007]," says Diala Shamas a Jerusalem-based researcher with B'Tselem. But the project took off in earnest, however, in January this year.
The video is sometimes chaotic, jumpy. Sometimes only the audio is captured and a pair of soldiers' boots.
But what it documents in all its rough reality is the experience of occupation on a daily basis for the most vulnerable families and communities – giving a voice to those who have been voiceless for so long.
"Right now we have about 100 video cameras," adds Shamas. "The largest number are in the Hebron region where the most frequent complaints of settler attacks are. And recently in the northern area and the region next to the [building] of the [separation] wall where there are demonstrations."
She explains the reason for introducing the Shooting Back project.
"The project started as response to the need to gather evidence. We were constantly filing complaints to no avail on the basis of lack of evidence, or … we don't know the name of the settler.
"Now we are going back and forth with our video-cassettes to [Israeli] police station begging them to press rewind, freeze… it is the bulk of our work. The value of the footage is not only evidential. It also has had a remarkable value in terms of advocacy and campaigning.
'We quickly realised the media value of this footage. It is maybe an overstatement but we started bridging this gap between what was happening in the occupied Palestinian territories and what the Israeli public can see.
"There was a conspiracy of silence surrounding settler violence in particular. This footage is shocking to Israelis.'
And in particular it has been two pieces of video, shot by Palestinians this year and released by B'Tselem, that have gained massive international attention by throwing the issue of human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories back into the spotlight.
The first was footage of a group of four hooded settlers from the settlement of Susya armed with what look like pickaxe handles brutally beating a group of Palestinian farmers.
The second – not taken as part of Shooting Back programme – but supplied to B'Tselem by a 17-year-old schoolgirl from the village of Ni'ilin earlier this month showed a protester against the building of the West Bank barrier on his village's land being shot in the foot by an Israeli soldier with a plastic bullet as he was held blindfold and bound.
The protester was Ashraf Abu Rahma, aged 27. The video was shot by Salam Kanaan aged 17. A constant presence at the demonstrations in the Palestinian villages in the rocky hills of the West Bank, Ashraf is employed by the villages as a watchman on land that is threatened with being taken from the Palestinian villages for the building of the West Bank barrier.
He says he was unaware of what was happening to him until almost the moment before he was shot and wounded in the foot.
It is only when he saw the video too that he was able to understand what happened to him.
Arrested during a demonstration against the West Bank barrier in Ni'ilin on July 7 he recalled last week being almost immediately blindfolded.
"They had rounded up the foreigners [from the International Solidarity Movement] and arrested me and another guy separately.
"They put me in a jeep and started cursing me, hitting me and using bad language in Hebrew and Arabic. It had never occurred to me that they would shoot.
"They held me in the sun for a long time. Later I heard them discussing what they were going to do with me.
"I recall hearing a conversation about how to shoot me. What I recall is the words rubber bullet, rubber bullet... I was blindfolded so I was only aware of their aggression.
"It was only when I saw Salam's video that I understood what happened to me. The guy touching me on my right shoulder before I was shot.
"Just before it happened they said they're going to beat me. They said they were going to send me to hell. They know me because I've been to every protest."
Ashraf claims the abuse continued even when he was on the ground after the shot was fired. "When I asked for medical attention they said: this is nothing, we are going to beat you more."
Although the Israeli military's version is that the shooting was a misunderstanding of the orders given by the lieutenant colonel on the scene — and that the aim was only to "frighten" Ashraf examination of the footage makes it hard to credit that version.
Eyad Haddad, B'Tselem's Ramallah-based field researcher who tracked down the footage of Ashraf's punishment shooting, believes that the project has helped supply crucial evidence in documenting abuses.
"These events that happen are often so distant, or happen in the middle of the night, where there is no media.
"Where we've seen there is a lot of violation from the settlers and especially where there are demonstrations happening and we want to monitor the Israeli soldier's behaviour we are distributing video cameras.
"It is having a good effect and it will stop the violations."
Haddad says the organisation is now trying to encourage people living in areas of confrontation to use their own cameras — if they have them – or mobile phones to film potential abuses that they encounter.
"We want to encourage a mentality to use the cameras. It is the only weapon that the civilians have."
According to Diala Shamas the recent high international profile of the footage shot of the settler beating in Susya and the shooting of Ashraf Abu Rahma has meant that the group has not only been inundated with requests for cameras from Palestinian communities, but those who already have cameras supplied by B'Tselem are shooting more footage of their day to day experiences.
"In the beginning we were almost begging people to take the cameras with them when they went out. They didn't see the use of it. But after the media coverage over the Susya incident… we've gotten a flood of requests for our video cameras. And those who have got the cameras are using them much more frequently."
Commenting on the Ni'ilin footage she said: "It is one of the biggest victories because it is the troops not the settlers. It is not just a 'rotten apple' which is usually the response that we get from the government spokespeople. We didn't give out 100 video cameras to document rotten apples. It was to show there was something systematic happening and it was structural to the occupation.
"In this case it was remarkable that it was actually the soldiers themselves. They did in fact open an investigation.
"They couldn't ignore it."
Saturday, 1 September 2007
Deir Yassin – from remembrance to resistance
By Paul Eisen*
In a recent piece on The Guardian - Comment is Free Tony Greenstein says that Deir Yassin Remembered is an anti-Semitic organization and, along with Roland Rance, Sue Blackwell and Les Levidow, he’s going to try to get the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to have nothing to do with us. Well, good luck to them, and if the PSC is foolish enough to bow to this kind of thing, then good luck to them too – they’re going to need it.
Deir Yassin Remembered is an international organization whose aim is to build a memorial to the victims of the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April 1948. But the list of victims extends far beyond the 100 to 130 elderly men, women and children who died that day. It extends also to the over 750,000 Palestinians expelled in the concurrent Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, to the over 500 Palestinian towns and villages destroyed or expropriated by the Jewish ethnic cleansers and now also to their descendants ‑ the now over six million dispossessed Palestinians living either as second-class citizens in Israel, in the towns, villages and refugee camps of post-1967 occupied Palestine, in refugee shanty-towns in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan and finally in the many Palestinian communities-in-exile in practically every corner of the world. In short, Deir Yassin Remembered exists to build a memorial to all of Palestinian life and memory.
But Deir Yassin Remembered is not just about remembrance; Deir Yassin Remembered is also about resistance. Yes, there was a time when we spoke passionately about the proximity of Deir Yassin to the Jewish Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem and about the inextricably close and agonized relationship between Jewish suffering and the suffering inflicted by Jews on Palestinians. But not any more. There have been too many deaths, too many disappointments and now the nearness of Deir Yassin to Yad Vashem serves merely to underline the stark differences between abused and abuser ‑ and the continuation of the abuse.
But there's no smoke without fire. If Tony and his colleagues say that we are anti-Semites and the Palestinian solidarity movement should have nothing to do with us, there must be something in it – nobody, surely, nobody could dream up such a thing. Indeed, there is something in it. Tony's complaint rests on three matters: the inclusion of Israel Shamir in our Board of Advisers, a couple of articles written by myself, and a recent visit by Dan McGowan, the founder of DYR, to Ernst Zundel, who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in Germany for Holocaust denial.
To take these in turn: Israel Shamir is indeed on our board – he is one of 20 members of whom half are Jews, half non-Jews; half are men, half women. Shamir is an intellectual, a religious thinker and writer, and an outstanding and tireless supporter of Palestinian rights. He also has severe criticisms to make of the way Jews and Jewish organizations are currently behaving and have behaved in the past. Shamir has also proposed the existence of what he would term a Jewish "spirit" or "paradigm" (which, incidentally, is by no means confined only to those who identify themselves as Jewish) which, if unchecked and unbalanced, can lead to supremacism.
But Israel Shamir has never been guilty of violence nor has he ever advocated violence. He has never discriminated against anyone, nor has he ever advocated discriminating against anyone. Nor has he ever advocated denying anyone the right to free speech, or to a fair hearing. I like Shamir enormously, I find him stimulating and informative and always gentle in his manner and humane in his approach, and I agree with a lot, though not all, of what he says and writes. Shamir is in full agreement with the spirit and meaning of Deir Yassin, has contributed enormously to Deir Yassin Remembered and is an honoured member of the Deir Yassin Remembered Board of Advisers.
Tony also objects to DYR because I, one of its seven directors, wrote, in a personal capacity, two articles with which he disagrees. The first, "Jewish Power", examines Jewish identity and the complex relationship between Judaism, “Jewishness” and Zionism, and distinguishes between Judaism the religion and “Jewishness”, the more complex cultural and emotional identity. It also examines Jewish power, not only in its political manifestation but also, and more interestingly, its cultural, ideological/religious and emotional significance. Finally, it examines the degree to which Zionism, and therefore the abuse of Palestinians is a Jewish phenomenon and, if it is, asks why it is so hard to say so.
The Holocaust Wars was written in three sections. The first, titled “Scum", describes the struggle of Ernst Zundel, now sentenced to five years' imprisonment in Germany for Holocaust denial. This section attempts to contextualize and rehumanize Ernst Zundel and Holocaust revisionism. It also attempts to see the National Socialist regime through the eyes of the German people. In fact, what this part of the essay really tries to do is to see the world through the eyes of the “other” ‑ and for an obsessively curious self-identifying Jew such as myself, who could be more “other” than Ernst Zundel? The second section, "The War for the Truth," examined Holocaust Revisionism ‑ its scholarship and its struggle. Although I stopped short of coming out in definite agreement with revisionists, I did (and do) find their case compelling. The last section was called "The War for the Spirit" and was concerned with the ideological, spiritual and religious meaning of the Holocaust narrative and the use to which it has been put to enforce Jewish power. For me, this was the most important section of the essay.
Finally, Dan McGowan, the founder and US director of DYR, also in a personal capacity, visited Ernst Zundel in prison. Why he did this, what happened there and what he made of it is all is described most eloquently in his piece A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zundel ‑ a piece of writing which, for Tony, renders Dan and the organization he founded now beyond the pale.
But that’s not all; it gets worse – worse even than Tony knows because DYR does indeed include in its solidarity discourse a challenge to the notion of a non-religious Jewish specialness and its possible effects, when empowered, on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Is this racism? Not at all ‑ Jews are not a race so, strictly speaking, any anti-Jewishness cannot, by definition, be racist. Is this anti-Semitic? Maybe it is ‑ it all depends on what you mean by the term. Is it acceptable? Who knows? Let the debate begin.
But look, it really doesn’t matter what anything means or what is or is not acceptable. Tony and his colleagues will tell us what things mean and what we may or may find acceptable because Tony is an arch practitioner of that which he most denies - Jewish power. Does Jewish power exist? Of course it does. Who has not seen someone stand up in a solidarity meeting and begin with the words, “As a Jew...”? And who has not seen the meeting then fall reverently, even fearfully silent? And who, in the course of their solidarity activities, at one time or another has not felt the brunt of Jewish collective power? So, of course Jewish power exists. The question is how does it exist, to what extent and to what effect? Let the debate begin.
So on 10 March at the PSC Annual General Meeting Tony Greenstein, Roland Rance, Les Levidow and Sue Blackwell will propose, and may even pass, a motion which will urge the PSC to shun Deir Yassin Remembered. And their stated reasons are that one out of 20 DYR advisers and two out of seven DYR directors hold views with which Tony and his friends disagree. Why do they do this? Why do these largely Jewish activists see their personal struggle against a perceived anti-Semitism as so important that it overrides any other considerations, including the good work of Deir Yassin Remembered?
The answer is simple. Like so many Jewish activists, and particularly those who style themselves as “anti-Zionist”, Tony and his colleagues’ real priority, despite their protestations to the contrary, is defending Jews, mainly from what they see as anti-Semitism. Of course they care about other things too ‑ Palestinian liberation, civil rights. human rights, etc. etc. but when push comes to shove it is Jewish interests that they will ultimately defend. But why should this be a problem? Why should Jews and others not defend Jewish interests? The problem is twofold: First because not only do they prioritize Jewish interests but they also insist that everyone else must do the same. And they’re not afraid to enforce it either with the ever-present threat of being labeled an anti-Semite. The second reason why their defense of Jewish interests is a problem is that they won't admit that they are doing it and one reason why they won't admit they are doing it is because they don't really know that they are doing it. At least that is how it was. I now have a sneaking suspicion many of them are beginning to realize what they are doing and are now beginning to do it consciously. In effect, self-delusion is becoming conscious lying.
And why should the PSC, without a whimper, pass such a motion? The answer is again simple: Like all of us, they are terrified, terrified of Zionist power and the penalty of defying it – being branded an anti-Semite or, even worse, a Holocaust denier. And this is what this is really all about. Because the real reason for this motion is this: Tony Greenstein, Roland Rance and Les Levidow, three Jewish activists, plus Sue Blackwell their obligatory non-Jewish associate, want to make it clear who really runs the PSC, indeed who runs all Palestinian solidarity.
Deir Yassin Remembered does not “know” what is right for the Palestinian people. Only Palestinians can know that. Deir Yassin Remembered cannot free Palestine. Again, only Palestinians can and will do that. But Deir Yassin Remembered stands in unconditional solidarity with Palestinians and in unflinching opposition to those who oppress them and oppress so many others in the world.
Deir Yassin Remembered has advisers, directors, members and supporters with very many different ideas and beliefs – some will agree with all of the above, some with parts of it and some with none of it. But what they all share is an unconditional commitment to Palestinian remembrance and resistance. Anyone who wishes to join us is welcome and, provided they do not try to impose their views on, or try to silence others, we care little for what else they believe. So, if Tony Greenstein and his friends will mend their ways, they too are welcome.
*Paul Eisen is the UK director of Deir Yassin Remembered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
