Israel mouthpiece thanks Jewish “anti-Zionist” pretenders for services rendered

Gilad Atzmon views the astonishing admission by one of Britain's vilest Israel mouthpieces that self-proclaimed "anti-Zionist" pretenders such as Tony Greenstein, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and Sarah Kershnar are rendering an invaluable service to the racist, Jews-only state of Israel.

In the last year we have seen some so called Jewish “anti-Zionists” working hard to appease their Zionist brothers.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi attempted to run a clandestine operation within our movement. Sarah Kershnar of the IJAN attempted to jeopardise a Palestinian solidarity conference. We saw the relentless Tony Greenstein harassing Richard Falk, John Mearsheimer, Lauren Booth, Dr Samir Abed Rabo, Sameh Habeeb and me, among many others. Now they have all been rewarded.

The ultra-Zionist, pro-war, neocon Harry’s Place decided today to thank its Jewish “anti-Zionist” allies. In an astonishing peace titled “A (small) Thank You to anti-Israel Jews”, Zionist mouthpiece Anthony Cooper thanks his collaborators within our midst.

 Cooper’s article reaffirms what we know for more than a while: that there is a clear ideological, political and ethical continuum between Israel and some of the so-called Jewish “anti-Zionists” (also known as AZZ  – anti Zionist Zionists).

“In many, perhaps most, cases the motivation to publicly denounce Israel is the desire to fight anti-Semitism.” Cooper writes about his anti Zionist brothers, confirming the thesis I developed in The Wandering Who? In most cases, Jewish “anti-Zionists” are mainly concerned with Jewish tribal interests. They aren’t exactly Palestinian solidarity activists or even ordinary humanist. They just want Jews to look slightly better. I guess that, for them, the Shoa in Palestine is a secondary matter.

The "anti-Zionist" Zionists

As we always suspected the true motivation behind the “Jews only” pro-Palestinian cells, Cooper informs us that “the founding declaration of Independent Jewish Voices, for example, places the fight against antisemitism at the heart of the organization. Likewise, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP) state that they “extend support to Palestinians trapped in the spiral of violence and repression” because they ”believe that such actions are important in countering anti-Semitism”. Thus, the two leading Jewish “pro-Palestinian” organizations are clearly concerned primarily with anti Semitism.

Cooper is far from stupid. He is correct when suggesting that “far from destroying the impression of Jewish support for Israeli actions, their [the Jewish “anti-Zionists”) opposition reinforces it”. Cooper is correct here: the opposition of half a dozen righteous Jews is not going to vindicate the Jewish people of crimes committed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people.

But the good news is not finished yet. Hold your breath because Cooper has some clear plans for his bunch of “anti-Zionist” sayanim: He says: “Very few anti-Israel Jews are self-hating. We [the Zionist] should recognize this and make sure to keep them within the big tent against anti-Semitism rather than making them pariahs. They may be opponents of Israel but they can be our allies in the struggle against anti-Semitism.”

The message for every Palestinian solidarity person is pretty clear-Beware!

If ultra-Zionist Cooper is correct, from now on we had  better take with a pinch of salt the entire Jewish “anti-Zionist” political discourse. As you probably know, I have been saying this for years, but now, for the first time, you can hear it from the horse’s mouth.

In defence of Gilad Atzmon

From Sarah Gillespie:

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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! 

Anti-Semitism: Zionism's indispensable alibi

By Maidhc Ó Cathail



Although Zionism typically represents itself as the solution to anti-Semitism, the truth is less flattering. In fact, hostility toward Jews is indispensable to the cause of Jewish nationalism. If anti-Semitism didn't exist, Zionists would have to invent it.

Dear Ms Atwood, I regret to inform you that you have failed the lie detector test

From Roger Tucker:

By going to Israel to accept the Dan David Prize, you have chosen to go over to the Dark Side. If you do make the trip, there is no turning back. Please consider well what people who have appreciated your literary work and heretofore took seriously your vaunted support for human rights have to say.

I have copied below some of their comments from emails that have been circulating.

First, here is an exchange of letters between Atwood and Antoine Raffoul:

Dear Mr Raffoul,

Since the Dan David Prize has been announced and I have accepted it. I have received several letters from different groups asking me to reverse my acceptance and boycott this event. I believe that Amitav Ghosh, with whom the prize is shared, has also begun to receive such letters. He and I have been chosen to receive the Dan David Prize for our literary work-work that is said to depict the twentieth century from the vantage point of our respective countries.

I sympathize with the very bad conditions the people of Gaza are living through due to the blockade, the military actions, and the Egyptian and Israeli walls. Everyone in the world hopes that the two sides involved will give up their inflexible positions and sit down at the negotiating table immediately and work out a settlement that would help the ordinary people who are suffering. The world wants to see fair play and humane behaviour, and it wants that more the longer the present situation continues and the worse the conditions become.

However, the Dan David Prize is a cultural event. It is not, as has been erroneously stated, an "Israeli" prize from the State of Israel, nor is it a prize "from Tel Aviv University," but one founded and funded by an individual, just as the Griffin Prizes in Canada are. To boycott an individual simply because of the country he or she lives in would set a very dangerous precedent. And to boycott a discussion of literature such as the one proposed would be to take the view that literature is always and only some kind of tool of the nation that produces it -- a view I strongly reject, just as I reject the view that any book written by a woman is produced by some homogeneous substance called "women." Books are written by individuals.

Another dangerous precedent is the idea of a cultural boycott. Even those strongly endorsing a financial boycott, such as www.artistespourlapaix.org, Artists For Peace, reject cultural boycotts, which theysee as a form of censorship. (See their December 22 posting.) Indeed, such boycotts serve no good purpose if one of the hopes for the future is that peace and normal exchanges will be restored. PEN International, an organization of which I am a Vice President, is in favour of continuing dialogue that crosses borders of all kinds. In this situation, threats to open discussion come from both sides of the wall: consider this report from IFEX:

I realize that I am caught in a propaganda war between two desperate sides in a tragic and unequal conflict. I also realize that, no matter what I do, some people are going to disagree with my decision and attack me for it. That being the case, I have chosen to visit, to speak with a variety of people, and - as much as is possible -- to see for myself, as I have done in other times and other countries many times before. After that, I will write my own Open Letter - something that I would otherwise be unable to do.

With respect,
Margaret Atwood

Dear Ms Atwood,

I am truly grateful for your response to my email which urges you to renounce the Dan David Prize 2010. May I be allowed a response to your kind email in order that I may shed light on some key statements you made about the Dan David Prize.

First of all, the letters and emails you received from those urging you to reject the Prize, were not meant to put you in a situation where, as you said, you feel "caught in a propaganda war between two desperate sides in a tragic and unequal conflict. I also realize that, no matter what I do, some people are going to disagree with my decision and attack me for it".

The nature of this world we live in is that we are not only private individuals living in a private shell, but also members of a world society built on the principles of human rights and the rule of international law.
Some of us attain positions of importance, like yourself, which reinforce and protect these principles for future generations. For that, the world should hopefully be a better place. So you should not be caught in the middle of a conflict, but rather, become a contributor to its resolution.

The Palestine/Israel conflict is a tragic one and we are all part of it, directly or indirectly. It is tragic because one nation, Israel, chooses to occupy and de-humanize millions of Palestinians living under the worst occupation in modern history. You eloquently wrote that you "sympathize with the very bad conditions the people of Gaza are living through due to the blockade, the military actions, and the Egyptian and Israeli walls. Everyone in the world hopes that the two sides involved will give up their inflexible positions and sit down at the negotiating table immediately and work out a settlement that would help the ordinary people who are suffering. The world wants to see fair play." I totally agree with you, but it is a fact that "the world" you speak about is precisely the world we all belong to as individuals, as groups and as rich and civilized societies. You and millions of others, would have an opinion to make about this world. We live on one planet and have witnessed, unfortunately, many wars in our lifetime and we need to avoid similar ones in the future and to allow next generations to live in peace and harmony.

You go on to state that "the Dan David Prize is a cultural event. It is not, as has been erroneously stated, an "Israeli" prize from the State of Israel, nor is it a prize 'from Tel Aviv University,' but one founded and funded by an individual [Dan David]". It may not be a prize from the State of Israel itself, but nor is it a prize from an individual. This prize and the event are the brainchild of Dan David, founder of the Dan David Foundation which is an enterprise headquartered at Tel Aviv University and funded with a $100 million donation from him. Dan David himself holds the title of Doctor Philosophiae Honoris Causa from Tel Aviv University and is a member of the Board of Governors of Tel Aviv University. The Dan David Prize is bestowed on its recipients in the presence of Israeli government officials (last year it was Israeli President Shimon Peres when the Prize was awarded to Tony Blair - who left a shameful legacy in Iraq).

Dan David is not a simple individual but an important one for Israel. According to a detailed report in Haaretz newspaper in November 2007, Dan David is portrayed as an important philanthropist, more for the State of Israel than for the world. He may not be a household name there but his presence is felt everywhere. According to the report, "David owns 90% of the world automatic photo booth, and all the booths in every mall in Israel". The Dan David Foundation is also engaged in myriad philanthropic projects in fields as varied as archaeology, medicine, and film.

Your portrayal of Dan David as "an individual" underestimates his real position and power. Despite his upbringing as a simple but smart child in Bucharest where he was born in 1920, Dan David, according to the report, "was active in various movements and became active in Zionism following his experiences in the Second World War". He has been expanding his activities and "donates more to charity in Israel than to business". The report continues, "[at]16 he joined a Zionist youth movement and helped organize aliyah from Romania [to Israel], where he continued to live". Later, after the Romanian authorities allowed him to leave, "he went to relatives in Paris and in August 1960 he, his mother and aunts sailed on the Theodor Herzl to Israel. They lived in Herzliya and later moved to Tel Aviv... [He] now insists that he is an Israeli".

One cannot but admire Dan David's business acumen and success. But he is certainly not 'anybody' or any 'individual'.

Finally, you argue that "to boycott an individual simply because of the country he or she lives in would set a very dangerous precedent. Another dangerous precedent is the idea of a cultural boycott". It so happens that the country in question here is the State of Israel which is conducting daily military activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories reminiscent of Apartheid South Africa. Its institutions whether, cultural, educational, industrial, scientific, judicial, agricultural or military, are part and parcel of the political institution of the State and harbour activities in tune with the policies of the State, working hand in hand to enforce the policies of an illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Thank God you are not 'any individual'. You are Margaret Atwood. You have an important voice in the literary world. You can have a stronger voice in the humanitarian one. We urge you to make a stand, by rejecting the Dan David Prize, or at the least in the body of your forthcoming Open Letter.

Respectfully yours,
Antoine Raffoul
Coordinator, 1948: Lest We Forget

Email excerpts: 

Ms Atwood, I deplore your decision to accept a prize that should not be accepted by any humanitarian. I deplore that you did not heed the Gazan students' searing and articulate plea to you of more than a month ago. I deplore that you continued to throw justice and a right course of action to the winds in your rejection of Mr. Raffoul's reasoned appeal. I am particularly disturbed by your characterization of Zionist Israel's six-decade program of cleansing the Holy Land of the Palestinians in terms of "...two desperate sides in a tragic and unequal conflict." Ms Atwood: the Zionists controlling Israel are not desperate. They are criminally psychotic...

It is one thing to hold to noble beliefs, even very strong and passionate ones. It is quite another to translate one's beliefs into actions at those times when History offers one a chance to participate in an important way. It is only when we translate our beliefs into action that we can claim that our beliefs, however passionately we may hold them, are worthy of being considered convictions. Today people all over the world are reconsidering their opinions of you. The Internet is droning with sadness, and worse, with the bitterness of betrayal, this morning as people who long for an opportunity to 'make a difference' themselves have seen that someone they considered as one of their own, someone who has passionately implored us, in all the body of her work, to seek justice, has failed to answer History's call.. You had a chance to make a difference, Ms Atwood. You had a chance to prove that your beliefs are deserving of being considered convictions. You had a chance to represent those who have been inspired by your work. But you chose not to answer this call. Some are very angry; others merely disillusioned, but rest assured that a large number of people all over this world who once admired you, and your work, now see you in a much different light.

Writers who have access to publishing outlets should try to bring Atwood's betrayal into the public consciousness. It really is a striking story line. A writer who has built a career on appeals for human justice now goes to Tel Aviv to accept laurels, ignoring the monstrously inhuman injustice inflicted by that nation on innocent people?

While concerned citizens around the world are expressing their shock and dismay at your acceptance of this 'literary' award, I didn't expect anything else from you. Unlike those who buy your books and place you on a pedestal, I have never bought your books nor placed you anywhere. And whereas your fans will be shocked by this admission, I always trust my intuition. And I've been proven correct by none other than yourself. You, Ms Atwood, do not have a moral or social conscience, and a moral and social conscience is much more important than any award. You cannot buy a moral and social conscience. You either have it or you don't. You clearly don't.

Palestine is the ultimate lie-detector.” No truer words were ever spoken. This will be a dark spot on Atwood's career that will remain long after she and we are gone.

From a Canadian activist and associate editor of an alternate-press internet site:

Despite everything she's written and received acclaim for, her acceptance of this “award” will forever show her in the eyes of people who give a damn about what happens to all of humankind, as solely lacking a moral conscience. Her efforts to excuse accepting the award are worse than accepting it. There are certain things that one cannot justify. In her case, this is one of them, and no amount of blather from her will ever justify this action on her part. I'm sickened by her actions, but, then, I never was a fan which makes me a lot more intuitive than I thought. ... She's "supposed" to be a "social" activist? One could laugh in derision if one had a mind to. Courage is obviously one characteristic she doesn't have -- at least not when it comes to doing the right thing. Of course, I'm sure the money played a role as well -- doesn't it always in those circumstances? Presenting these "awards" is just another way of ensuring silence with respect to the terrorist state and its supporters elsewhere. Another Canadian "icon" -- gutless at best.

From an Israeli Palestinian MD and author:

Your attempts to beat some sense into Atwood's head is admirable. I am surprised that Amitav Ghosh, Atwood's partner in this case of moral bribery, seems to be getting off scot free. The man can be held accountable on grounds of defaulting on the legacy of Gandhi, if on no other ground. He doesn't even have the excuse of having grown up under the blinding glow of the West's partiality to Zionism. He should not be spared our anger and dismay. Let us copy him in our mail to Atwood. I know he was properly warned in advance of accepting his half million.

From an activist and internet investigative journalist residing in New Mexico:

Atwood's excuses are worse than the actual acceptance of the award. In particular, her vile remarks about the "inflexible positions" held by both sides. Indeed, the Palestinian people refuse to bend on their demand that they receive justice and that Israel abide by international law. How terrible of them to be so "inflexible." Likewise, the "propoganda war" she feels trapped within is a completely one sided war—62 years (plus) of lies and deceptions from the Zionists. Poor Ms Atwood. How does she hold up under the pressure? It must be tough to be a multimillionaire celebrity faced with such gut wrenching decisions. Disgusting. She demonstrates not only her lack of compassion but also the depths of her ignorance. On a positive note, I sent out a notice recently about Gil Scott Heron having cancelled his upcoming concert in Tel Aviv. Good for him. Now if Joan Armatrading and Bob Dylan would demonstrate as much integrity. Bob Dylan, for effing sake!

From a Palestinian Christian residing in beleaguered East Jerusalem (1948 refugee from West Jerusalem); retired YWCA executive and private-school principal:

Thank you all for your input. We just felt the solidarity of writers through PALFEST which took place during this last week. Maybe they can help Ms Atwood see the light. Indeed how disappointing that a writer of her status cannot perceive the difference between the oppressed and the oppressor.

From an activist and blogger residing in Mexico:

I posted the EI article on my site the following day. I didn't post her specious, self-serving and infuriating response. It's the So. African Jewish writers who fought apartheid like Nadine Gordimer who really get my goat - she trekked to Israel too. I don't even want to mention Leonard Cohen - I was one of many who wrote him with a plea not to give his concert, but I guess the tribal pull was too great. Well, these things take time. In a few years no one but zealots will go, if there's still an Israel then. Our job is to bring about Israel's demise as soon as possible, peacefully, before those psychopaths blow up the world.

From an Irish activist and classical-music composer, which I feel compelled to quote in full:

I realise that I am too late to contribute to the messages calling upon you not to accept the Dan David Prize. There is an ironic reason for this: I have admired your fiction, poetry and ethical stance for so long that it never entered my head that you could possibly perpetrate such a betrayal. Although I have long been convinced that the issue of Palestine is the ultimate lie-detector, with residual naivety I believed that your commitment to truth would have enabled you to see through the tissue of lies that the Zionists and their defenders have woven in order to obfuscate a simple issue of oppression and dispossession.

But perhaps even more disheartening is the tissue of disingenuous evasions that you yourself have woven in order to disguise the ethical irresponsibility of having accepted this award. You describe the idea of a cultural boycott as "a dangerous precendent" and as "a form of censorship", citing an organisation called Les artistes pour la paix which, on 22nd December 2009, expressed its support for the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions called for by Palestinian civil society, but made an exception for artists because the supposed "contribution of artists and intellectuals is essential to the dissemination of the message of Peace...”

I am myself a professional composer of classical music, and down the years have come to despair of the lazy and self-serving rationalisations artists dream up in order to exempt themselves from ordinary people's struggle for justice. In this context it should be stressed that being "for peace" in Israel/Palestine is inadequate if one is not simultaneously "for justice". Given that the Palestinian call for BDS does not make an exemption for artists and that there is a major Palestinian civil society organisation entirely dedicated to promoting the cultural boycott (www.pacbi.org), western artists adopting the contrary position must be aware that they are rejecting a call emanating from those whose oppression is maintained with the help of our own western governments - the Harper administration in Canada being an egregious example. Such artists must be prepared to face the suspicion that their own career interests have blinded them into sublimating the iniquity of their role when they thus deny the victim's will. This denial adds an unpalatable note of self-pity to your attempted appropriation for yourself of the role of victim ("no matter what I do, some people are going to disagree...") as you accept this lucrative Prize.

The shibboleth of censorship plays a sorry role in this charade. Censorship is indeed one of the central tactics of Zionism, both within the Israeli state and in the USA and many European countries where open support for the Palestinian cause and just criticism of Israel is all but excluded from the mainstream media and can constitute professional suicide in many walks of life. Do you believe that the cultural boycott which played a small but significant role in helping to end Apartheid in South Africa constituted "censorship" and therefore should not have been imposed? It is censorship of the most virulent type when the Israeli authorities prevent (as often happens) a Palestinian writer from travelling abroad to read his/her work, or when Israeli police intervene to shut down a Palestinian literary festival in East Jerusalem.

You might respond that "two wrongs don't make a right", but the truth is that culture is not a sacred realm floating far above the tribulations of the real world, and that artists in Israel and elsewhere are all too often complicit in the crimes of their governments - either by their silence, or by their willingness to allow their work and their presence to be appropriated by oppressive states. The Israeli foreign ministry has explicitly advocated employing culture as propaganda, a tactic that applies both to Israeli artists travelling abroad and to visiting artists, whose presence will inevitably be exploited as evidence of Israel's "normality" and "acceptability" - although in reality Israel is a racist, apartheid state that is both abnormal and unacceptable.

In asking writers and other artists not to accept invitations to Israel or awards from the Israeli establishment, PACBI and other defenders of Palestinian rights are asking such artists voluntarily to reject their own exploitation by the Israeli state. To lend oneself to such exploitation despite such a heartfelt plea, and to do so in the name of rejecting "censorship", is in my view to be guilty of self-seeking moral blindness.

Open letter, Palestinian Students' Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel: Defying appeal from Gaza students, Atwood set to accept Israeli prize:

One last word. The cultural boycott of Israel is probably the most important aspect of the BDS campaign because it affects the perceptions and awareness of a great many people who otherwise are passive recipients of the ubiquitous propaganda spewed forth by the Zionist owned and/or controlled mainstream media and the bought and paid for politicians. But they are passionate about their artists, so when one of them declines an invitation to speak, receive an award or perform in Israel it gets their attention and adds significantly to the growing awareness of the nature of the fascist State of Israel and the dangers it poses not only to the Palestinians but to all of humanity.

 Ms Atwood can be reached through her publisher via email. Do send her a note and let her know how you feel.

Alert: Palestine activists beware of Tony Greenstein, Mark Elf and their cohorts

By Nureddin Sabir
Editor, Redress Information & Analysis

Brothers and sisters, comrades in the struggle for justice for the people of Palestine,

This is an urgent warning to beware of the activities of Mark Elf, who runs a blog called Jews sans frontieres, and Tony Greenstein, who describes himself as a “socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist”.

Both Greenstein and Elf are highly suspect individuals, pretending to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist activists but in reality devoting much of their time to distracting genuine fighters for justice for the Palestinian people with endless, tedious and time-wasting arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Israeli occupation, land theft, colonization, the Gaza siege, Zionism or apartheid.

Greenstain and Elf had become incensed by an article written by me and published on Christmas Day (but given the following day’s date, as we do with all articles published after 1800 UK time) in which a number of whistleblowers from some of Britain’s top Zionist institutions spoke of an unprecedented crisis ripping through these institutions. In rantings posted on their respective blogs, Greenstein and Elf questioned the veracity of the article and, in a racist slur against Arabs, Greenstein doubted that an Arab – me – was capable of writing in fluent English.

Among their other scurrilous allegations, Greenstein and Elf claim that the article was written by one of our contributors, Gilad Atzmon, not by me.

Gilad Atzmon is one of a number of regular contributors to Redress Information & Analysis, but he is certainly not the author of the article, which was written by me. It is also me, not Gilad or anybody else, who interviewed the Jewish whistleblowers quoted in our article, Britain’s Jews in crisis over national loyalty, identity and Israel.

For the record, of the 664 articles published to date on Redress Information & Analysis, Gilad Atzmon’s share is 55, or eight per cent of all the articles.

For those who may not be aware, Greenstein, Elf and other like-minded judaeo-centric narcissistic misfits have been endlessly hounding Gilad Atzmon for a number of years because he had dared to question aspects of Jewish culture and identity.

If Greenstein and Elf were sincere in their support for the Palestinian cause, they would have welcomed the fact that whistleblowers from Britain’s top Zionist establishments had plucked up the courage and, at considerable risk to their jobs and personal relationships, chosen to speak to Redress Information & Analysis – an Arab-run website which they trusted would not leak their details back to their institutions. The fact that they did quite the opposite just about sums up the depravity of Greenstein and Elf.

Recently, Greenstein and Elf, acting through one Gerald Joseph Downing, who describes himself as “a Trotskyist bus driver with ambitions to assist in rebuilding the Fourth International and ending capitalism on the planet by socialist revolution”, have been frantically emailing all and sundry calling for a campaign, including one on Facebook, to defend Greenstein and company so that they can continue to protect Israel’s rear by distracting Palestine activists from the core issues related to fighting for justice for the Palestinian people – see our article Israel’s hidden friends ramp up campaign to distract Palestine activists from core issues.

We do not lightly accuse people of being agents of another state so, without hard evidence, we shall refrain from accusing Tony Greenstein and Mark Elf of knowingly acting on behalf of the State of Israel under cover of being anti-Zionists. But what we do know of them is this:

1. They are childish characters who have failed to make the transition from the relatively burden-free world of student politics to the politics of the real world with its duties and responsibilities. To them, this is all an entertaining game.
2. They believe that being Jewish and claiming to be anti-Zionist entitles them to hijack the Palestine solidarity movement and set its agenda.
3. They seek to distract genuine supporters of the Palestinian cause with endless, tedious and time-wasting arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Israeli occupation, land theft, colonization, the Gaza siege, Zionism or apartheid.
   

It is crucially important for everyone in the Palestine struggle to do what they can to neuter Tony Greenstein, Mark Elf and their cohorts politically. They must be politically isolated and ostracized by all who care for the struggle for justice for the Palestinian peope. To engage or cooperate with them in any any shape or form, now or at any time in future, could mean only one thing: they would drag you down to the subterranean hovel they inhabit.

Finally, I repeat what my colleague Salaheddin Ahmad said in the article Israel’s hidden friends ramp up campaign to distract Palestine activists from core issues:

We say this to Tony Greenstein, Mark Elf and anyone else who cares to stoop to their gutter: Palestine is and shall remain at the centre of the struggle for justice for the Palestinian people. We Palestinians and Arabs played no part in your Holocaust and we have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, past or present, real or imagined. It is us, not you, who are continuing to suffer from the legacy of the Nazis. Go forth and take your Jewish issues elsewhere. We shall have nothing to do with you.



And we repeat: if you and others in your camp wish to campaign against Zionism and racism, then we would welcome this and wish you good luck. But do your campaigning in parallel to us, not together with us. We do not and shall never trust you and we shall have nothing to do with you.

I am Israel – an apartheid state

Britain's Jewish Chronicle newspaper rattled by Redress website

Britain's top Zionist newspaper and Israeli mouthpiece, the Jewish Chronicle, is becoming desperate in the face of growing public support for the Palestinian cause.

In an article published on 17 December, the newspaper expressed concern at the work of our website, Redress Information & Analysis, in highlighting Israeli racism and crimes against humanity.

The article, written by the Jewish Chronicle's chief political editor, Martin Bright, cited a shadowy organization known as the "Community Security Trust", as being particularly worried by the fact that Redress's message was now part of mainstream public opinion.

The Community Security Trust is officially a "charity" but has been accused of hiding behind its charitable status in order to act as the internal policing arm of the Zionist Federation in Britain.

Martin Bright became the Jewish Chronicle's first-ever non-Jewish political editor in September 2009. A self-proclaimed left winger, Mr Bright subscribes to a broadly neo-conservative agenda on Islamism and the "war on terror".

He is also the author of a pamphlet for the right-wing thinktank Policy Exchange attacking UK government dialogue with Muslims.

To read the full Jewish Chronicle article, click here.

Inside Britain's Israel Lobby

Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby – Channel Four | Monday 16 November | 8 p.m.

Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.

Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.

Political commentator Peter Oborne sets out to establish who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.

He investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.

The pro-Israel lobby aims to shape the debate about Britain's relationship with Israel and future foreign policies relating to it.

Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.

For background information, click here. In particular, the articles below (others are listed on the left-hand margin of http://www.redress.cc/stooges):

• Israel’s agents of influence in Britain
• Who's who of Israel's agents of influence in Britain – also in PDF format.
• Zionists at the heart of the British government
• British premier stresses his pro-Israel credentials
• Exposing the ignorance and hypocrisy of Conservative Friends of Israel
• Gordon Brown puts Israel lobbyist in charge of Britain's Middle East policy
• Israel now calling the shots on UK security?

The Palestinian struggle explained – in two minutes

The 2009 elections: a new stage in the isolation of Israel

From Yossi Schwartz, an Israeli anti-Zionist left-wing activist:

Yossi Schwartz argues that the recent Israeli parliamentary elections marks the final death of the Israeli left, which has been one of the pillars of occupation and ethnic cleansing, and usher in a new stage in the isolation of Zionism and Israel.

The result of the elections in Israel signal the death of “left Zionism” and the victory of the right and the extreme right.

Accordong to Israeli journalist and “left-wing” commentator Gideon Levi,

The Israeli left died in 2000. Since then its corpse has been lying around unburied until, finally, its death certificate was issued, signed, sealed and delivered on Tuesday [10 February]. The hangman of 2000 was also the gravedigger of 2009: Defence Minister Ehud Barak. The man who succeeded in spreading the lie about there being no partner for peace has reaped the fruit of his deeds in this election. The funeral was held two days ago.

The Israeli left is dead. For the past nine years it took the name of the peace camp in vain. The Labour Party, Meretz and Kadima had pretensions of speaking in its name, but that was trickery and deceit. Labour and Kadima made two wars and continued to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank; Meretz supported both wars. Peace has been left an orphan. The Israeli voters, who have been misled into thinking that there is no one to talk to and that the only answer to this is force -- wars, targeted killings and settlements -- have had their say clearly in the election: a closing-down sale for Labour and Meretz. It was only the force of inertia that gave these parties the few votes they won.

We can agree with Levi that the Zionist left, including Meretz, deserve their death; they brought it onto themselves, but not in the last decade as Gideon claims. The very concept of “left Zionism” was a fraud from the very beginning. It was the Zionist left who raised the racist slogans “Jewish Labour” and “Redemption of the land”, anti-Arab worker and peasant slogans aimed at expelling Arab workers and of stealing the land of the peasants. It was the Zionist left that helped the British break and destroy the 1936-39 Palestinian uprising. It was the Zionist left that committed as many massacres as the right against the Arabs in 1947-48 in the &&i&Nakba&. It was the Zionist left who planned the war and occupation of 1967.

What is Zionism nowadays? An archaic and outdated concept born in a different age, a vague and delusive ideology occupying a grey area between the permitted and the proscribed. Does Zionism mean settlement in the territories? Occupation? The legitimization of every act of violence and injustice? The left stammered. Any statement critical of Zionism, even the Zionism of the occupation, was considered a taboo that the left did not dare break. The right grabbed a monopoly on Zionism, leaving the left with its self-righteousness.

A Jewish and democratic state? The Zionist left said yes automatically, fudging the difference between the two and not daring to make either a priority. The legitimization of every war? The Zionist left stammered again -- yes to the beginning and no to the continuation, or something like that. Solving the refugee problem and the right of return? Acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of 1948? Unmentionable. This left has now, rightly, reached the end of its road

The point that Levi fails to grasp is that there was never a different left in Zionism. There was never a possibility to build in Palestine a Jewish state without expelling most of the Palestinians and stealing their land. Nor could a genuine left in Israel accept the concept of two states because two states would be based on the continuation of the evils of 1947-48.

The death of Meretz is ominous for the future of Hadash and Gush Shalom, both of which hold on to the Zionist state and thereby perform the role of loyal opposition.

There is a future for Palestinians who must struggle to survive. There is a future for the Jews who want to live in this country as equals and not as colonialists. It is a future of joining the Arab working class revolution that will form in this country a Palestinian workers’ republic as part of a socialist federation of the Middle East.

Zionism belongs to the dustbin of history. Yes, it can still make wars and kill many Palestinian children. But it is doomed, just as other, similar ideologies that existed in other places were doomed.

These days opposition to Zionism is growing all over the world. It is not any more the radicalized middle class alone that opposes Zionism but also a growing movement within the working classes, in the trade union movements in South Africa and Australia, Canada and Ireland.

The next government in Israel is likely to be of the right and the extreme fascist right. It will be a government that openly stands for a new war and more settlements, more stealing of the land and more brutality. It will a government that will isolate the Zionist state as never before.

On the surface, the recent elections make it look as if nothing new happened in the political landscape of Israel. Yet, they mark a new stage in the growing isolation of Israel in the region and in the entire world.

Zionism in Leeds University campus, UK

Leeds University Union to vote on a motion to referendum which will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus.

Leeds University Union agreed last week, by a vote of 12 to 11, to send a motion to referendum which will label anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and silence pro-Palestinian groups on campus.

The motion, shrouded in the language of combating anti-Semitism, is a reversal of a motion passed 2 years ago which gave Palestinian activists at Leeds University the rights enjoyed by their counterparts throughout the country. If passed, organisations which have an anti-Zionist platform, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Palestine Solidarity Group will be prevented from receiving funding from the union and prevented from holding many of their events.

The motion claims, without providing any supporting evidence, that “Anti-semitism is increasing significantly both across the country and within universities and student unions.” and resolves to adopt the seemingly innocuous EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism. The EUMC working definition, which the British government has so far refrained from explicitly adopting has been seized upon by pro-Israeli groups across the country and used to silence criticism of Israel by claiming that anti-Semitism includes “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”.

 If adopted, the motion will be shut down debate on the extent to which Israel should label itself as a state for the Jewish people as opposed to a state for all its citizens, such as the UK and all other liberal democracies. Thus an issue, which is openly discussed in academia, civil society and even within the Israeli government itself, will become forbidden on the Leeds campus.

Commenting on the motion, the Jewish peace group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians state that “We find this unhelpful, to put it mildly, and believe that it harms the struggle against antisemitism rather than helping it, by severely distorting what the real problems are.” They continue, “We hope that the University of Leeds Student Union will not be foolish enough to adopt the motion on the topic when it comes up for debate. It will do nothing to help counter the real dangers of antisemitism in our society because so much of the working definition is, in our view, misdirected“.

One of the many parts of the definition they opposed is the example of how ‘anti semitism manifests itself’: by ‘applying double standards by requiring of it (Israel) a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation’. As another peace organization, European Jews for a Just Peace noted, ‘this is a formulation that allows any criticism of Israel to be dismissed on the grounds that it is not simultaneously applied to every other defaulting state at the same time …’

Jews against Zionism, an organisation which represents over 150,000 Jews world-wide commented that “One of the well-known tactics of Zionists to silence their critics is to accuse them of anti-Semitism. Of course, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two separate things.”

They also take issue with another part of the working definition which classes “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.” as anti-Semitic. They assert that whether it is anti-Semitic or not “depends if the accusation is made at the Jews in general, or at particular Jews. We are greatly pained when we hear blanket accusations against our people, or any people, for that matter. But certain Jews may, by their actions and words, demonstrate a greater loyalty to the Zionist state than to their own country. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out.”

A representative of the Leeds Student Palestine Solidarity Group commented that “Under current Union policy we are well within our rights to express our opposition to Zionism and defend the rights of Palestinians who suffer discrimination and human rights abuses on the basis of their race, within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The passing of this motion would mean, however, a serious curtailment of the activities of the PSG on campus simply to satisfy the political views of another section of the student body. We believe that people should be allowed to hear both sides of the debate and make up their own minds.”

The motion will go to referendum the week beginning Friday the 28th of November and the results will be announced on Friday December the 5th.

To register your opposition to the motion contact:

University Secretary Roger Gair
j.r.gair@adm.leeds.ac.uk

University Vice-Chancellor Michael Arthur
m.j.p.arthur@adm.leeds.ac.uk

Chief Executive of Leeds University Union Leslie Dixon
l.dixon@luu.leeds.ac.uk

Highlighting:

• The status of Leeds University as an institution which encourages free thought.
• The fact that the motion will shut down an area of perfectly legitimate debate.
• That the reputation of Leeds University will be seriously undermined if this motion if passed.
• Asking these officials to ensure that freedom of speech at Leeds is protected.

To learn more about how you can support the campaign contact the Palestine Solidarity Group at info@leedspsg.org

Zionist "left" and "right": a tactical difference over a secondary matter

From Henry Lowi:

This article, by Zeev Sternhell, a respected Israeli professor, exemplifies the difference between the Zionist “left” and the Zionist right as a tactical difference over a secondary matter. Not a difference over values. The Zionist right denies the rights of the people of Palestine by military domination of the country, enforcing the Nakba, and enacting apartheid-like legislation. The Zionist “left” -- that led the Nakba and the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights -- now says that, to preserve the “Jewish state”, what is required is an international border separating Jews and Arabs.

So, those are the options offered by Zionism: apartheid legislation within one state, or apartheid partition into two states. In both cases, Palestine refugees are not welcome home. In both cases, no effect is given to the values of equality, democracy or human rights. Is it any wonder that the Israeli “peace movement” cannot gather any steam?! It has nothing to offer!

As you read the article, pay attention to Prof. Sternhell's reference to the "number of marriages between Israeli citizens and foreigners" as a negative factor. What Neanderthalism!

And "the idea of special legislation for Arab Israelis would not have even come up" because ... there would have been no "Arab Israelis". They would all have been ethnically cleansed! Like dust!

This is the self-described voice of "sanity" in Israeli society. This is the current that claims to be in sync with enlightened universal norms. These are the people for whom "a common political framework for everyone living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, thus creating a multinational, multicultural, androgynous entity, turning Zionism into a passing episode" is the worst nightmare!

Oh, the longing for the ethnically homogeneous ghetto, crucible of backwardness, inbreeding and oppression!

These are the people who say: "Don't impose an international boycott on Israeli academic and cultural institutions because WE, YOUR ALLIES, will be its first victims!"

Well, actually, our allies are the workers, the farmers and the refugees, who have nothing to lose but their chains, and who have a world to win.