There’s No Business Like Shoa Business

Yesterday, the Independent reported  “Astonishing new research shows Nazi camp network targeting Jews was twice as big as previously thought.” But The Independent was quick and kind enough to give us an insight into the  implications of this new Shoa affair. “The team behind the research, based at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, told The Independent that they believe the evidence could also be crucial to survivors trying to bring cases for compensation against Germany and other countries for time spent in camps whose existence was hitherto obscure or undocumented.”

Legendary (and very perceptive) Israeli diplomat Abba Eban had already sussed it out in the 1950s when he told us that: “There’s no business like Shoa business”

For years, I’ve been opposing European Holocaust denial laws. Among other things, I believe that those laws are designed primarily to maintain the primacy of Jewish suffering and divert attention from the sins of Zionism and Israel. But now I realise that I could have been wrong. As the Holocaust Industry runs out of steam, some Jewish institutions are engaged in sustaining the Holocaust as the mother and father of all genocides and, as we read above, they certainly know how to convert suffering into shekels. So now I grasp that Holocaust Denial Laws, may actually have been passed to save the Goyim from the inevitable inflation of future demands for further compensation such as reported above.

For now, I would advise the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC to adopt a more universal approach and, rather than focusing solely on the suffering of Jews,  to look into the suffering inflicted on Palestinians by the Jewish State because, as far as we can see, the whole of Palestine is now an open air prison.

Oh, and while they’re at it, The Holocaust Memorial Museum can also look into the role Jewish lobbies are playing in the destruction Palestine – a crime taking place before our very eyes.

Spielberg v. Tarantino

Hollywood And The Past…

History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.

Yet, one may wonder, how many historians really engage in such a task? How many historians are courageous enough to open the Pandora Box? How many historians are brave enough to challenge Jewish History for real? How many historians dare to ask why Jews? Why do Jews suffer time after time? Is it really the Goyim who are inherently murderous, or is there something unsettling in Jewish culture or collectivism?  But Jewish history is obviously far from being alone here: every people’s past is, in fact, as problematic. Can Palestinians really explain to themselves how is it that after more than a century of struggle, they wake up to find out that their current capital has become a NGO haven largely funded by George Soros’ Open Society? Can the Brits once and for all look in the mirror and explain to themselves why, in their Imperial Wars Museum, they erected a Holocaust exhibition dedicated to the destruction of the Jews? Shouldn’t the Brits be slightly more courageous and look into one of the many Shoas they themselves inflicted on others? Clearly they have an impressive back catalogue to choose from.

The Guardian vs. Athens

The past is dangerous territory; it can induce inconvenient stories. This fact alone may explain why the true Historian is often presented as a public enemy. However, the Left has invented an academic method to tackle the issue. The ‘progressive’ historian functions to produce a ‘politically correct’, ‘inoffensive’ tale of the past. By means of zigzagging, it navigates its way, while paying its dues to the concealed and producing endless ad-hoc deviations that leave the ‘repressed’ untouched. The progressive subject is there to produce a ‘non- essentialist’ and ‘unoffending’ account of the past on the expense of the so-called ‘reactionary’. The Guardian is an emblem of such an approach, it would, for instance, ban any criticism of Jewish culture or Jewishness, yet it provides a televised platform for two rabid Zionist so they can discuss Arab culture and Islamism.  The Guardian wouldn’t mind  offending ‘Islamists’ or British ‘nationalists’  but it would be very careful not to hurt any Jewish sensitivities. Such version of politics or the past is impervious to truthfulness, coherence, consistency or integrity. In fact, the progressive discourse is far from being ‘the guardian of the truth’, it is actually set as  ‘the guardian of the discourse’ and I am referring here to Left discourse in particular.

But surely there is an alternative to the ‘progressive’ attitude to the past. The true historian is actually a philosopher – an essentialist – a thinker who posits the question ‘what does it mean to be in the world and what does it take to live amongst others’? The true historian transcends beyond the singular, the particular and the personal. He or she is searching for the condition of the possibility of that which drives our past, present and future. The true historian dwells on Being and Time, he or she is searching for a humanist lesson and an ethical insight while looking into the poem, the art, the beauty, the reason but also into the fear. The true historian is an essentialist who digs out the concealed, for he or she knows that the repressed is the kernel of the truth.

Leo Strauss provides us with a very useful insight in that regard. Western civilization, he contends, oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem.  Athens — the birthplace of democracy, home for reason, philosophy, art and science. Jerusalem — the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian,  or the essentialist, for that matter, is obviously the Athenian. The Jerusalemite, in that regard, is ‘the guardian of the discourse’, the one who keeps the gate, just to maintain law and order on the expense of ecstasies, poesis, beauty, reason and truth.

Spielberg vs. Tarantino

Hollywood provides us with an insight into this oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem: between the Jerusalemite ‘guardian of the discourse’ and the Athenian contender – the ‘essentialist’  public enemy.  On the Left side of the map we find Steven Spielberg, the ‘progressive’ genius. On his Right we meet peosis itself, Quentin Tarantino, the  ‘essentialist’.

Spielberg, provides us with the ultimate sanitized historical epic. The facts are cherry picked just to produce a pre meditated pseudo ethical tale that maintains the righteous discourse, law and order but, most importantly, the primacy of Jewish suffering (Schindler’s List and Munich). Spielberg brings to life a grand epic with a clear retrospective take on the past. Spielberg tactic is, in most cases, pretty simple. He would juxtapose a vivid transparent binary opposition: Nazis vs. Jews, Israeli vs. Palestinians , North vs. South, Righteousness vs. Slavery. Somehow, we always know, in advance who are the baddies and who are the goodies. We clearly know who to side with.

Binary opposition is indeed a safe route. It provides a clear distinction between the ‘Kosher’ and the ‘forbidden’.  But Spielberg is far from being a banal mind. He also allows a highly calculated and carefully meditated oscillation. In a universalist gesture of courtesy he would let a single Nazi into the family of the kind. He would allow the odd Palestinian to be a victim. It can all happen as long as the main frame of the discourse remains intact.  Spielberg is clearly an arch guardian of discourse – being a master of his art-form, he will certainly maintain your attention for at least 90 minutes of a historic cinematic cocktail made of factual mishmash. All you have to do is to follow the plot to the end. By then the pre-digested ethical message is safely replanted at the hub of your self-loving narcissistic universe.

Unlike Spielberg, Tarantino is not concerned with factuality; he may even repel historicity. Tarantino may as well believe that the notion of ‘the message’ or morality are over rated.  Tarantino is an essentialist, he is interested in human nature, in Being and he seems to be fascinated in particular in vengeance and its universality. For the obvious reasons, his totally farfetched Inglorious Bastards throws light on present Israeli collective blood thirstiness as being detected at the time of Operation Cast lead. The fictional cinematic creation of a revengeful murderous WWII Jewish commando unit is there to throw the light on the devastating contemporary reality of Jewish lobbies’ lust for violence in their relentless push for a world war against Iran and beyond. But Inglorious Bastards may as well have a universal appeal because the Old Testament’s ‘eye for and eye’ has become the Anglo American political driving force in the aftermath of 9/11.

Abe’le vs. Django

What may seem as a spiritual clash between Jerusalemite Spielberg and Athenian Tarantino is more than apparent in their recent works.

The history of slavery in America is indeed a problematic topic and, for obvious reasons, many aspects of this chapter are still kept deeply within the domain of the concealed. Once again Spielberg and Tarantino have produced a distinctively different accounts of this chapter.

In his recent historical epic Lincoln, Spielberg, made Abraham Lincoln into a Neocon ‘moral interventionist’ who against all (political) odds, abolished slavery. I guess that Spielberg knows enough American history to gather that his cinematic account is a crude Zigzag attempt, for the anti slavery political campaign was a mere pretext for a bloody war driven by clear economical objectives.

http://youtu.be/KJVuqYkI2jQ

As one may expect, Spielberg peppers his tale with more than a few genuine historical anecdotes. He is certainly paying the necessary dues just to keep the shame shoved deep under the carpet.  His Lincoln is cherished as a morally driven hero of human brotherhood. And the entire plot carries all the symptoms of contemporary AIPAC lobby assault within the Capitol.  Being one of the arch guardians of the discourse, Spielberg has successfully fulfilled his task. He added a substantial cinematic layer to ensure that America’s true shame remains deeply repressed or shall we say, untouched.

Needles to mention that Spielberg’s take on Lincoln has been cheered by the Jewish press. They called the president Avraham Lincoln Avinu (our father, Hebrew) in The Tablet Magazine.  ‘Avraham’, according to the Tablet, is the definitive good Jew. “As imagined by Spielberg and Kushner, Lincoln’s Lincoln is the ultimate mensch. He is a skilled natural psychologist, an interpreter of dreams, and a man blessed with an extraordinarily clever and subtle legal mind.”  In short, Spielberg’s Lincoln is Abe’le who combines the skills, the gift and the traits of Moses, Freud as well as Alan Dershowitz. However, some Jews complain about the film.   “As an American Jewish historian, writes Lance J. Sussman, “I’m afraid I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the latest Spielberg film. So much of it is so good, but it would have been even better if he had put at least one Jew in the movie, somewhere.”

I guess that Spielberg may find it hard to please the entire tribe. Quentin Tarantino, however, doesn’t even try. Tarantino is, in fact, doing the complete opposite. Through a phantasmic epic that confesses zero interest in any form of historicity or factuality whatsoever, he manages, in his latest masterpiece Django Unchained, to dig out the darkest secrets of Slavery. He scratches the concealed and judging by the reaction of another cinematic genius Spike Lee, he has clearly managed to get pretty deep.

http://youtu.be/ztD3mRMdqSw

By putting into play a stylistic spectacle within the Western genre Tarantino manages to dwell on every aspect we are advised to leave untouched. He deals with biological determinism, White supremacy and cruelty. But he also turns his lens onto slaves’ passivity, subservience and collaboration. The Athenian director builds here a set of Greek mythological God like characters; Django (Jamie Fox), is the unruly king of revenge and Schultz (Christoph Waltz) the German dentist turned bounty hunter is the master of wit, kindness and humanity with a giant wisdom tooth shining over his caravan. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) is the Hegelian (racist) Master and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is the Hegelian Slave, emerging as the personification of social transformation. To a certain extent, the relationships between Candie and Stephen could be seen as one of the most profound yet subversive cinematic takes on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.

In Hegel’s dialectic two self-consciousness’ are constituted via a process of mirroring. In Django Unchained, Stephen the slave, seems to convey the ultimate form of subservience, yet this is merely on the surface.  In reality Stephen is way more sophisticated and observant than his master Candie. He is on his way up. It is hard to determine whether Stephen is a collaborator or if he really runs the entire show. And yet in Tarantino’s latest, Hegel’s dialectic is, somehow, compartmentalized.  Django, once unchained, is clearly impervious to the Hegelian dialectic spiel. His incidental liberation induces in him a true spirit of relentless resilience. When it comes to it, he kills the Master, the Slave and everyone else who happens to be around, he bends every rule including the ‘rules of nature’ (biological determinism). By the time the epic is over, Django leaves behind a wreckage of the Candie’s plantation, the cinematic symbol of the dying old South and the ‘Master Slave Dialectic’.  Yet, as Django rides on a horse towards the rising sun together with his free wife Broomhilda von Shaft (Kerry Washington), we are awakened to the far fetched cinematic fantasy. In reality, I mean the world out of the cinema, the Candie’s plantation would, in all likelihood, remain intact and Django would probably be chained up again. In practice, Tarantino cynically juxtaposes the dream (the cinematic reality) and reality (as we know it).  By doing so he manages to illuminate the depth of misery that is entangled with the human condition and in Black reality in America in particular.

Tarantino is certainly not a ‘guardian of the discourse.’ Quite the opposite, he is the bitterest enemy of stagnation. As in his previous works, his latest spectacle is an essentialist assault on correctness and ‘self-love’. Tarantino indeed turns over many stones and unleashes many vipers into the room. Yet being a devout Athenian he doesn’t intend to produce a single answer or a moral lesson. He leaves us perplexed yet cheerful. For Tarantino, I guess, dilemma is the existential essence.  Spielberg, on, the other hand, provides all the necessary answers. After all, within the ‘progressive’ politically-correct discourse, it is the answers that determine, in retrospective, what questions we are entitled to raise.

If Leo Strauss is correct and Western civilization should be seen as an oscillation between Athens and Jerusalem, truth must be said – we can really do with many more Athenians and their essentialist reflections. In short, we are in a desperate need of many more Tarantinos to counter Jerusalem and its ambassadors.

Sharon The Truth Teller

Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel Sharon, wrote in the Jerusalem Post that Israel should “Flatten all of Gaza.”

“There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they’d really call for a ceasefire,” he wrote. “We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

Many Israelis and even some Zionists are ‘outraged’  but the truth must be told – Sharon’s views are fully consistent with Zionism, Israeli thinking and some aspect of Jewish culture.

For example, Sharon’s call is fully consistent with some devastating Old Testament’s passages:

‘You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.’ Leviticus, 26:7–8

‘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

So, both like his real father and his spiritual forefathers, the young Sharon wants to destroy the Gazans, he wants to reduce them and their civilization into dust – thoughts unfortunately embedded in the Old Testament. Though religious Jews following the Talmud rather than the Torah and may be critical of literal interpretations of the Holly book, Gilad Sharon, is a secular Israeli and yet he follows here the most banal and literal interpretation of the Biblical text.

Sharon is also in line with ultra-Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky’s Iron Wallphilosophy. Jabotinsky believed that in the erection of an ‘iron wall’ “which the native (Arab) population cannot break through.” Some would argue that by 1948 Jabotinsky’s Iron wall, became the backbone of Israeli political pragmatism and though largely performed by his  political enemies, the Nakba could be seen as the materialisation of Jabotinsky’s ideology.

Sharon’s views are also similar to those expressed this week by Israel’s deputy P.M., Eli Yishai, who contended “we must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water.”

The young Sharon is clearly a truth teller. He offers us a genuine glimpse into the murderous Israeli psychosis, and the message to be drawn is obvious. It is now time to admit that we cannot grasp the Israeli collective psychosis and fascination with violence and death without a deep understanding of Jewish culture, Jewish supremacy and Jewish tribalism.

For obvious reasons some Jews and even a few Palestinians do not want us to take this route and insist that we avoid any criticism of the Jewishness of the ‘Jewish State’. This bankrupted philosophy would be almost  funny if it weren’t so tragic -  Elaborating on the root cause of Zionist barbarism is now an elementary humanist obligation.

I guess that we have reached the point of no return. We must now critically examine Jewish politics, Jewish Lobbying, and Israeli crimes in the context of Jewish culture. Such an approach may save the world and hopefully, it might also save many Jews of the shackles of their own heritage.

An Anecdote

I was actually amused to learn today that the notorious Zionist Jeffrey Goldberg, himself an ex IDF concentration camp guard, was amongst the first to denounce Gilad Sharon. Here is how he referred to Sharon’s article on Twitter:

@JeffreyGoldberg

“Gilad Sharon has called on Israel to bomb Gaza to oblivion. I’m semi-surprised the Jerusalem Post published such dreck.”

It is not at all clear at all whether Goldberg opposes Sharon’s views. However, it is obvious that Goldberg is tormented by the idea that Sharon’s view may leak out. ‘I’m semi-surprised the Jerusalem Post published such dreck’ he says. Goldberg believes that the murderous aspects so intrinsic to tribal supremacy are better kept within the ghetto walls. He doesn’t want the Goyim to know. So predictably Goldberg was amongst the first to attack my book, ‘The Wandering Who’, and pursued my endorsers  for the exact same reasons. He was very concerned about what people read about Israel, Zionism, Jewish identity politics, and the ideology that motivates himself to serve in our midst as a Zionist agent.

No ‘Red Line’ For Israel

Israeli news outlets reported today that President Obama rejected an appeal by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to set a specific “red line” to stop any further Iranian uranium enrichment.

According to reports, in an hour-long conversation on Tuesday, Obama deflected Netanyahu’s proposal to make the size of Iran’s stockpile of close-to-bomb-grade uranium the threshold, the crossing of which would trigger a US military strike on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities.

But it seems that, this time at least, President Obama has decided against launching a world war on behalf of the Jewish State and its powerful lobby.

“We need some ability for the President to have decision-making room,” said an American official. “We have a red line, which is a nuclear weapon. We’re committed to that red line.” The meaning of this is simple: America just doesn’t buy the Israeli intelligence reports regarding Iranian intentions.

Israel is not happy. Apparently, the Israelis want to see Iran wiped out – and soon and its officials have already confirmed that such an American guarantee falls far short of the Jewish state’s security needs.

Ynet reported today that prime minister Netanyahu told reporters this week that “the Obama administration had no ‘moral right’ to restrain Israel from taking military action on its own if it refused to put limits on Iran.” Ynet adds that “the remarks were followed by reports claiming that Obama snubbed Netanyahu’s request to meet during the United Nations General Assembly session in New York this month.”

So it seems that for now, the Obama administration has come to its senses – it has said NO to Jewish pressure.

Of course, this decision is far more likely to be political than ethically or morally driven. Amid the presidential election, Obama has been quick to perceive a window of opportunity that may prove to be a game winner. Obama lets the Republican party and their presidential candidate Mitt Romney operate as Netanyahu’s Sabbath Goyim. Obama clears the stage to Romney who foolishly and voluntarily pushes for another Israeli war, he lets Romney be a Zionist mouthpiece, the one who scarifies America and American soldiers for Israel. Consequently, Obama presents himself as a reasonable, sensible and responsible leader– all in all, a ‘real American patriot’.

But, by now, one thing should be clear. Israel, as we now have long known, lacks the military capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear project and needs America to take care of it. Netanyahu and the Jewish Lobby were convinced they could, ahead of the election, pressure Obama into such a suicidal mission. They were wrong.

But still, the take-home message is plainly written on the wall: Israel and its lobby are the gravest danger to world peace and they are not going to hold back.

We’ve long known that the arrival of Obama did not bring peace. Like those before him, he has surrounded himself with rabid Zionist warmongers. But we can only hope that the penny has now dropped – even if we also know that the penny isn’t worth all that much anymore.

Israel, The Day After

Last week, an interesting article by Daniel Gordis appeared onTablemag.com. Gordis, a committed Zionist intellectual, is concerned about the inevitable collapse of the Jewish state and its impact on world Jewry in general and American Jews in particular.

Although it’s reassuring that Zionist scholars are now realising that that the Jewish State is on its way out, even more importantly, Gordis’ article gives us a glimpse into contemporary Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture and Zionist collective psychosis. And interestingly, Gordis reaffirms each and every critical argument I myself raise in my latest book The Wandering Who.

Gordis is tormented by polls that suggest that the centrality of Israel within Jewish American life is declining. Apparently, a recent survey suggests that 50 percent of young Jewish Americans (35 years old and younger) would not see the destruction of Israel as a ‘personal tragedy’.

In his attempt to explain such a dramatic change in Jewish Diaspora  attitude, Gordis refers to Peter Beinart’s take on the subject: that young American Jews feel safe, and unlike their parents, do not fear anti-Semitism. Beinart is correct. Western Jews are no longer anxious. On the contrary, contemporary Jewish political arrogance knows no limits. AIPAC and similar Western Jewish lobbies have been openly pushing for interventionist wars for more than a decade and some influential Jews have been open in exploring different forms and aspects of Judeocentric domination of the media, banking, culture and politics. In fact it seems that many Jews are not troubled at all by a possible rise of anti Semitism and are unconcerned with any possible consequences of their own actions.

To a certain extent this sense of Jewish omnipotence may be seen as a direct continuum of Israeli strength; when young American Jews witness their American elected politicians dancing shamelessly to AIPAC’s Klezmatic noise, naturally they are filled with a sense of invincible might and it is this that is the essence of contemporary Jewish collective power – a power that can only be realised in connection with Israeli strength.

Pre Traumatic Stress Again

Gordis is there to shake Jewish Diaspora confidence by reintroducing the old tribal collective fear. He writes: “Theodor Herzl did what he did and wrote what he wrote because Jewish life in the Diaspora had become, to use Hobbes’ phrase, ‘poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’” According to Gordis, contemporary Jews are too self-possessed and feel far too safe. “What happened back then, they assert, could not happen today.”  But Gordis believes they are deluded. “American Jews’ confidence resembles that of the Jews of Cordoba—who were forcibly converted, burned alive at the stake, and summarily expelled in the Spanish Inquisition.” Similarly, he asserts that, “the Jews of Berlin in 1930 also believed they had found the ultimate enlightened home, that the dark days of Europe would never return. And in the space of but a few years, German Jewry was erased.”  Here, Gordis conveys a clear message – in the light of a new potential Shoa “American Jewish life as it now exists would not survive the loss of Israel.”

In The Wandering Who I explore the impact of Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Pre-TSD) and I refer in particular to that uniquely Jewish collective tendency to be culturally, spiritually and politically shaped by some phantasmic, imaginary, future, disastrous event. Jewish politics is always formed by future trauma. Accordingly, Gordis message to his fellow Jews is clear. It isn’t the Shoa of the past that should unite us, it is actually, the Shoa ahead that should reawaken our Zionist bond.

Gordis message to American Jews is clear. A strong Israel together with AIPAC’s control of American foreign policy is good for the Jews and any alternative is a recipe for disaster. “When some 400 mostly Orthodox rabbis marched on Washington in the October 1943, President Roosevelt simply refused to meet them and departed the White House via a rear door. There were no mass protests, no caravans of buses to Washington to demand help for their European kin.”  Nowadays, the situation has changed dramatically. The presidency of the USA is a democratically elected position reserved for that candidate who has bought the trust of the Jewish Lobby.

“Jews today no longer think of themselves as a tiptoeing people,”says Gordis. And why should they? Thanks to Israel and its powerful lobby, they regard themselves as the most influential and powerful ethnic group on the planet. In America, AIPAC dominates  foreign policy, in Britain 80% of leading party MPs are members of the powerful CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) and in France CRIF runs the show. Take it from Gordis a Zionist official mouthpiece; “Israel has changed the existential condition of Jews everywhere, even in America. Without the State of Israel, the self-confidence and sense of belonging that American Jews now take for granted would quickly disappear.” In short, Jews can run the show – but only as long as Israel is unbeatable.

And he’s not wrong. Like so many Zionists, Gordis is both honest and consistent – a quality I rarely find within the Jewish anti-Zionist discourse. Gordis openly admits that we are dealing here with a clear paradox. The sense of belonging and security that leads many American Jews to believe that they do not need the state of Israel is itself a product of that very same state of Israel. That lethal arrogance that led Zionists such as Bernard Henri Levi, or Jewish Chronicle writer David Aaronovitch to advocate interventionist global wars should be seen as the outcome of a strong Jewish State – a state that quite literally gets away with murder.

Symbolic Identifier

In The Wandering Who I suggest that Israel operates as a key Jewish symbolic identifier so that Jews construct their identity in reference to their Jewish state. This is not only true for Zionist Jews but is also the case for those so-called ‘anti Zionist Jews’ whose identity is inherently tied to their opposition to Zionism and Israel.  The disappearance of Israel would leave their political identity stark naked.

Gordis detects a similar pattern amongst American liberal Jews.“Though many American Jews, especially the younger among them, now believe the loss of Israel would not be tragic, Israel continues to energize them in ways that no other issue does.”Gordis continues “Israel is not just a homeland to Israelis. It is also a ‘state unto the Diaspora’; the state that, even from afar, secures the life and instils the passions of Jews all over the world.” This is true not only for Zionists, but also to those very few Jewish anti-Zionists who, by means of negation, ‘passionately’ cling to Israel.

Apocalypse Soon

Gordis seems to realise that, for Israel, the game is over, but he realises that this may also entail a collapse of Jewish power. “The loss of Israel would fundamentally alter American Jewry. It would arrest the revival of Jewish life now unfolding in parts of Europe. And Israeli Jewry would be no more. The end of Israel would, in short, end the Jewish people as we know it.”

The current ‘Jewish golden epoch’ is coming to its inevitable end. Yet, the question that remains is whether our Zionist and Israeli leaders would let our planet survive the collapse of their latest Jewish empire?  Following Netanyahu, Barak and AIPAC’s relentless push for Armageddon, and bearing in mind that collective suicidal narratives such as Samson and Masada are so precious within the Zionist and Israeli discourses, we should stay on high alert.  Sadly, turning our planet into dust is fully consistent with the Israeli and Zionist mission.

It is down to world leaders to dismantle Israel and its powerful Jewish lobbies wisely and carefully, accepting all the time that we are dealing with a very lethal entity. But it’s also down to each one of us to be fully attentive to Gordis’s exchange with his fellow Diaspora Jews. It’s down to us to oppose any form or symptom of Jewish power: Zionist, ‘anti’ Zionist and Sabbath Goyim alike. It is down to us to save ourselves and our universe, but also to save the Jews who are, unfortunately,  once again, about to bring yet another disaster on themselves and on us all.

The Neoconservative War Criminals In Our Midst

The State Department has an office that hunts German war criminals. Bureaucracies being what they are, the office will exist into next century when any surviving German prison guards will be 200 years old. From time to time the State Department claims to have found a lowly German soldier who was assigned as a prison camp guard. The ancient personage, who had lived in the US for the past 50 or 60 years without doing harm to anyone, is then merciless persecuted, usually on the basis of hearsay. I have never understood what the State Department thinks the alleged prison guard was supposed to have done–freed the prisoners, resign his position?–when Prussian aristocrats, high-ranking German Army generals and Field Marshall and national hero Erwin Rommel were murdered for trying to overthrow Hitler.

What the State Department needs is an office that rounds up American war criminals.

They are in abundance and not hard to find. Indeed, recently 56 of them made themselves public by signing a letter to President Obama demanding that he send in the US Army to complete the destruction of Syria and its people that Washington has begun.

At the Nuremberg Trials of the defeated Germans after World War II, the US government established the principle that naked aggression–the American way in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen–is a war crime. Therefore, there is a very strong precedent for the State Department to round up those neoconservatives who are fomenting more war crimes.

But don’t expect it to happen. Today, war criminals run the State Department and the entire US Government. They are elected to the presidency, the House, and the Senate, and appointed to the federal courts as judges. American soldiers, such as Bradley Manning, who behave as the State Department expects German soldiers to have behaved, are not honored, but are thrown into dungeons and tortured while a court marshall case is concocted against them.

Hypocrisy is Washington’s hallmark, and all but the most delusional are now accustomed to their rulers speaking one way and behaving in the opposite. It is now part of the American character to regard ourselves as members of the “virtuous nation,” “the indispensable people,” while our rulers commit war crimes around the globe.

Whereas we have all been made complicit in war crimes by “our” government, it still behooves us to know who are the active war criminals in our midst who have burdened us with our war criminal reputation.

You can learn the identity of many of those who are driving the world into World War Three, while their policies result in the murder of large numbers of Arabs and Muslims in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, by perusing the signatures to the contrived letter to Obama from the neoconsevatives calling on Obama to invade Syria in order to “rescue” the Syrian people from their government.

According the the letter signed by 56 neoconservatives, only the Syrian government is responsible for deaths in Syria. The Washington sponsored and armed “rebels” are merely protecting the Syrian people from the Assad government. According to the letter signers, the only way the Syrian people can be saved is if Washington overthrows the Syrian government and installs a puppet state attentive to the needs of Israel and Washington.

Among the 56 signatures are a few names from the Syrian National Congress, believed to be a CIA front, and a few names from dupes among the goyim. The rest of the signatures are those of Jewish neoconservatives tightly allied with Israel, some of whom are apparently dual-Israeli citizens who participate in the formation of US foreign policy. The names on this list comprise a concentration of evil, the goal of which is not only to bring armageddon to the Syrian people but also to the world.

The letter to Obama is part of the propaganda operation to demonize the Syrian government with lies in order to get rid of a government that supports Hizbollah, the Muslims in southern Lebanon who have twice driven the vaunted, but cowardly, Israeli army out of Lebanon, thus preventing the Israeli government from achieving its aim of stealing the water resources of southern Lebanon.

Not a single sentence in the letter is correct. Listen to this one for example: “The Assad regime poses a grave threat to national security interests of the United States.” What utter total absurdity, and the morons who signed the letter pretend to be “security experts.”

How do we evaluate the fact that 56 people have no shame whatsoever and will lie to the President of the United States, telling him to his face the most absurd and obvious false things in order to advance their personal agenda at the expense of not merely the lives of Syrians but, by leading to wider war, of life on earth?

This same neocon architects of armageddon are also working against Iran, Russia, the former Soviet central Asian countries, Ukraine, Belarus, and China. It seems that they can’t wait to start a nuclear war.

You can find the names of some of humanity’s worst enemies here.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

Did Israel Nuke Arafat?

Since we now have conclusive evidence that Arafat was poisoned by radioactive polonium 210 and since Israel is the prime suspect in Arafat’s 2004 assassination, surely it is time to point the finger at Israel and its leadership and to demand explanations.

Already in 2004, Silvan Shalom, at the time Israeli Foreign Minister, rejected as “scandalous and false” the idea that his country had a role in Arafat’s death. However, this is despite the facts that Israel had earlier threatened Arafat, blaming him for Palestinian violence and, after losing 15 citizens to suicide bombings in September 2003 and had decided to “remove” Arafat – though without elaborating publicly precisely how this might be achieved. As if this were not enough, an Israeli newspaper quoted Avi Dichter, at the time Shin Bet director as saying that ‘it would be better to kill Arafat than exile him.

This week we learned that a Swiss institute, which recently examined Arafat’s clothing, had found “surprisingly” high levels traces of polonium-210, the same substance which killed former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. Surely such findings should also encourage MI5 to re-examine Litvinenko’s death and his close ties with Israel and the Russian Oligarchs. Is it possible that polonium -210 was, at the time, the lethal method of choice amongst Israeli assassins?

But a positive answer to this question leaves me only confused. What could have led Israel to the peculiar decision to nuke its prime enemies by planting polonium in their food? What could they have in mind when they decided to use a substance that can be provided by only a very few states and would leave radioactive traces forever?  Do they really think that the Goyim and the Arabs are that stupid? I am afraid that the answer may as well be in the affirmative. Israel knows, and exults in the fact, that it gets away with murder – and quite easily too.

Still, we must here note that Israel has all along denied any involvement in Arafat’s death. On Wednesday, Avi Dichter, said that it was for Palestinians to investigate:

The body is in their hands. It is in Ramallah, and really, all the keys are in their hands.

Meanwhile Israel Army Radio confirmed that introducing polonium into food was the only way to kill someone with that particular poison and asked Dichter, whose agency had overall responsibility for monitoring the Palestinians, whether it would have been possible with Arafat.

 You’re asking me as his cook?

was Dichter’s jocular answer.

Actually, it’s no joke. Israel certainly wasn’t the cook but is clearly in the frame for being the chef in this gastronomic debacle. Dichter continued: “We were focused on more serious things. Arafat’s food did not interest us. I think it interested those around him, in order, really, to keep his health up, as he was indeed known to be unwell. But the Shin Bet, or the State of Israel, was not involved in Yasser Arafat’s food.”

I agree with Dichter. It is more than likely that Israel wasn’t directly involved in the preparation Arafat’s final hummus, but we, nonetheless, should be concerned here with the strong possibility that Israel may have, probably thorough a third party, found a way to pepper Arafat’s food with the radioactive substance.

Pressed on the poisoning scenario, Ditcher said:

Yasser Arafat had many enemies, domestically and abroad. But let them investigate … The Palestinians know well how to investigate what goes on in their house. Let them investigate and find out.

Dichter is obviously correct, Arafat indeed had many enemies, but the obvious question here is how any of his enemies could put their hands on a radioactive substance available to just a few states. And I guess that we all know of one possible suspect – and so does Dichter.

Baroness Ashton and Jewish Sensitivities

The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was criticised yesterday  for  comparing the killing of three children and a rabbi in a shooting attack in France to the situation in Gaza.

At the “Palestine refugees in the changing Middle East” conference in Brussels, Baroness Ashton, described the murders in Toulouse as a “terrible tragedy”, but  she then added: “When we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives.”

Seemingly some prominent Jewish and Israeli leaders couldn’t agree less. For them Jewish suffering exceeds all other suffering and Palestinian’s in particular.

The London Jewish Chronicle quoted some of the outraged critics.  “Even when read in context, Ashton’s words are beyond unacceptable,” said Oliver Worth, the British chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students. He said they were “truly outrageous and revolting” and called for her to resign because she had “lost all credibility”.  And yet, Mr Worth fails to explain why is it “outrageous and revolting” to equate Jewish suffering with Palestinian one.

“Baroness Ashton’s remarks were both crass and wholly inappropriate,” said  the chief executives of the Board of Deputies, yet he also fails to provide any reasoning.

“There is absolutely no equivalence between the situation in Gaza and the cold and callous murder of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler and the three children,” said Stefan Kerner, director of public affairs for the Zionist Federation. And I wonder why there is no ‘equivalence’,  is it because the Jews are yet to withdraw from Toulouse?  Or may be Mr Kerner actually expects the French to withdraw from Toulouse and to leave it to Rabbi Sandler and a few other Jews. I obviously find it really difficult to follow the Zionist logic anymore.

The Rabbi added: “For a person in Baroness Ashton’s position to even consider her comments appropriate is disgraceful. She should withdraw her statement immediately and apologise unreservedly for the offence that she has caused.”  And I wonder why is it offensive to Jews when someone equates their grief with Goyim’s suffering. Does the Rabbi really believe that Jewish suffering is somehow superior?

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, said he viewed her remarks as “inappropriate”. He said he hoped that she “re – examines and retracts them”. And I wonder, what kind of a retraction would please the Israeli Government. Do they really expect Baroness Ashton to  accept  that Jewish suffering is the ultimate form of human grief?

Israeli war criminal as well as Opposition leader Tzipi Livni also,  attempted to offer some reasoning. She  described Ashton’s remark as “reprehensible, infuriating, and wrong” to draw any link “between the murder of children in Toulouse and the massacre Assad is leading in Syria and the situation in Gaza”. Livni may be right for a change, the crime committed in Gaza by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish People is indeed unique in the history of brutality. Also the fact that 94% of the Israeli Jewish population supported IDF genocdial tactics at the time of operation Cast Lead is also very unique. Israel’s war crimes are indeed uniquely cruel and beyond comparison.

But Livni didn’t just stop there, she tried to qualify her statement. “A hate crime or a leader murdering his people is not like a country fighting terror, even if civilians are hurt.” According to Lvini, the Baroness had failed to make “the appropriate moral distinction”. To start with we do not know yet what led to the tragic event in Toulouse. However,  the fact that Israel defines the Palestinians as “terrorists” is yet to provide the Jewish State with an moral excuse to slay the indigenous people of the land  and to abuse every possible human right.

I guess that we are all becoming impervious to Jewish political logic. But maybe this is another symptom of the Zionification of our reality. From now on we are expected to obey.

Tribalism, Racism And Projection – Part 1

1st part of two – In this paper and the one to follow, I expose the misleading aspect that is, unfortunately, inherent to some ‘anti’ racist ideologies. I will elaborate on the role of anti racism in maintaing both Zionism and the Left discourse.

“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” ― Anaïs Nin 

It doesn’t take a genius to see that people who are identified as Zionist and Jews are, somehow, over represented in many blunders in today’s world affairs. The pro-war, Neocon think-tanks were overwhelmingly saturated with Zionist Jews, and the ‘moral interventionist’ advocates within the media are also largely Zionist Jews. The ‘brains’ behind the so-called Bush doctrine i.e. The ‘War Against Terror’, were Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, and if that were not enough, at the heart of the financial turmoil we also find Jewish persons, and financial institutions that are clearly recognizable as Jewish – such as the Lehman Brother, Goldman Sachs, Alan Greenspan, Bernie Madoff, and many others.

Here one must ask an obvious question – why should any Jew anywhere in the world be concerned in any way with these facts? Why should any Jewish person be concerned with actions or ideas that he or she probably has nothing to do with? Why should my Jewish neighbour, also subject to the financial turmoil and with no connection whatsoever with Madoff, Wolfowitz, DavidAaronovitch or Lord ‘cash point’ Levy, be at all concerned  with current financial or imperial blunders for which he has no responsibility? Why should my Jewish musician friends who have no ties to Israel, AIPAC, CFI, CST, Nick Cohen or Alan Greenspan feel guilty for crimes or actions taken by others just because they also happen to be Jewish? Would a Frenchman or an Irishman in America feel threatened or potentially discriminated against because of revelations that a few of their expatriates had been involved in a major colossal scandal?

So, the question I raise here is a simple one: why should any Jew feel guilty for crimes that are committed by other people – people he or she does not know and is not affiliated with? And the answer is equally simple – Jewish individuals have no reason to assume responsibility for actions committed by other Jews. But the truth of the matter is, that many Jews are extremely concerned about the current blunders: some feel guilty, and many – potentially at least – feel threatened. I would say that such a reaction merits our attention.

Amongst my other sins, I regularly monitor the Jewish media, and it is obvious to me that Jewish institutions are put on alert by any scandal that is even mildly associated with Jewish protagonists or institutions. Jewish media outlets give the impression that every blunder associated with a Jew is highly likely to turn itself into awave of vile anti-semitism.

We are left to wonder then whether the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is actually justified, or whether it is simply driven by a ‘fantasy of destruction’.

In my latest book The Wandering Who I contend that Jewish fear of anti-Semitism is largely self-inflicted and has very little to do with the surrounding reality. Jews tend to regard themselves as a tribe and most Jews are subjected to a degree of cultural and racially driven indoctrination. On the one hand, the religion of Judaism teaches its followers that  “all of Israel are responsible for one another” (1) (Kol Yisrael areivin zeh l’zeh); while on the other hand, the non religious, secular, emancipated Jews who identify politically, ideologically and socially as Jews they also operate within Jewish ethno-centric settings. Even within the Palestinian solidarity movement we find Jews who operate within ‘Jews only’ cells such as JBIG (Jews for Boycott Of Israeli Goods) and IJAN (International Jewish Antizionist Network). Somehow, they also feel primarily ‘responsible for one another.’

This reading of contemporary Jewish communities may reveal why many Jews are alarmed by crimes committed by other Jews – Jews whom they don’t even know.

I can think of three reasons for such a situation:

1. Projection: Because some Jews regard themselves as a racially exclusive tribe, they tend to believe that others - non Jews - will also regard them as such. In other words, many Jews project their own ethno-centric symptoms onto the Goyim i.e. They think the Goyim are as racially driven as they are.
2. Guilt: Because some Jews tend to regard themselves as a racially exclusive tribe, they feel guilty for not stopping those members of the tribe who are involved in some major blunders.
3. Conjunction –- both 1 and 2.

It is increasingly clear then, that at the heart of the Jewish fear of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish bigotry we find Jewish racial orientation, manifesting itself in various forms of projection and guilt. Though it is clear that Jews do not actually form a race, there is little doubt that Jewishness - and especially Jewish secular discourse - is racially, or at least tribally driven.  Not many people are aware of the racial tension between different Jewish communities such as Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. In Israel the blood donation of Black citizens with Ethiopian background isdisposed of for ‘medical reasons.  Israel legal system is saturated withdiscriminatory racist and supremacist laws against the Arab and non-Jewish population.

To a certain extent then, the fear of anti-Semitism inherent to the Zionist and Jewish secular political discourse is fuelled by the belief that the ‘other,’ i.e. the Goy, may well be equally driven by a similar racist ideology.

Some Jews, it must be said, might offer reasons to reject the above explanation: they might argue that Jewish history (i.e. that endless chain of Shoas), proves that ‘the sons of Israel’ would be justified in being on a constant state of alert. Jews, they might say, should be constantly aware that their neighbours might turn against them at any given moment.

I suggest that we are dealing here with a ‘chicken and egg’ situation: while some Jews would agree among themselves that anti-Semitism is largely an ‘irrational disease’,  a few historians such as Bernard Lazare were brave and honest enough to ask why and how exactly, Jews have managed to bring so much pain on themselves.

Jewish Imperial News

This last weekend brought with it some vile manifestations of Jewish politics in its most horrific forms.

United Against the Goyim

In the USA, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.

Actually, it wasn’t just Obama whom Adler suggested to eliminate, the Atlanta Jewish Times listed three lethal options to help Israel counter Iran’s nuclear capability. The first, to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to assassinate the current American president.

Devastatingly, Adler’s murderous attitude towards politics is wholly consistent with some Biblical and Talmudic anti-gentile teaching. It recalls clearly certain Old Testament genocidal verses such as Leviticus 26:7-8:

‘You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.’

It is also consistent with the appalling way in which Palestinians are abused by the Jewish State.  But it is also consistent with the Jewish cultural wrath towards the dissenting Jesus and towards dissent in general. May I remind readers that the word Yeshu – Jesus in Hebrew – is the abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase

“may his name and memory be blotted out”.

Without comparing president Obama to Jesus, Adler’s homicidal inclination is somewhat similar. Seemingly, some Jews have yet to forgive Jesus – nor President Obama. .

The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta condemned Adler’s article, saying that Adler’s proposals were

“shocking beyond belief.”

- a pretty bizarre reaction, considering  that the American Jewish Committee is itself an enthusiastic advocate of a war against Iran. Similarly, warmonger Alan Dershowitz listed recently the ‘legal’ reasoning behind an Israeli attack on Iran. True, he has yet to call for an American President to be murdered, he just thinks that launching another world war is a ‘reasonable’ thing to do. And, as far as I can remember, the American Jewish Committee didn’t rush to denounce Dershowitz or to apologise on his behalf or in the name of the Jews.

United Against Freedom

In Britain, following some relentless Jewish Lobby pressure, Press TV, The Iranian News Channel was forced off the air after Ofcom  (The ‘Independent’ regulator for the UK Communications Industries), revoked its licence for ‘breaching the Communications Act’. This should come as no surprise. Bearing in mind that 80% of British Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel, we in Britain must expect the rapid fading away of some of our most elementary freedoms.

United Against Palestine

On Saturday the Islamophobic blog Harry’s Place and the Zionist mouthpiece Jewish Chronicle completed their takeover of UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC). In the last two years, the PSC EC has expelled and marginalised some of its leading intellectuals amongst them some prominent Palestinian andMuslim activists and now, at last, they are beginning to receive their just credit.

In the last two months we have noticed that the PSC has been praised by both the notorious JC and Harry’s Place. Two weeks ago, pro-war Harry’s Place thanked the Jewish ‘anti’-Zionists for promoting Jewish tribal interests at the midst of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and this weekend a PSC Executive memberconfirmed that PSC’s latest maneuvers against ‘anti-Semitism’ were in response to criticism from the rabid Zionist website Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle. Like others, I am confused.  Should a Palestinian solidarity group surrender to an Islamophobic blog, a Zionist paper and other ‘Jews-only’ pressure groups?

Judging by the scale of the  celebration on Islamophobic Harry’s Place, you’d be forgiven for assuming that PSC – now firmly committed to the struggle against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial – is now just one more Zionist outlet, whose prime interest is in promoting Jewish tribal interests. I’m sure that the Palestinians in besieged Gaza and in refugee camps all over the Middle East are over the moon.

However, to counter the now complete Zionist takeover of PSC EC, a bunch of leading solidarity  activists, journalists and intellectuals have launched deLiberation, a new UK dissident magazine. We aim to become a leading UK media outlet, to provide news, analysis and fearless criticism – exactly where The Guardian and the BBC so miserably fail. And we will fill that space now created by the current PSC Executive Committee.

United Against The Guardian

Two days ago, I discovered that CIF Watch, a Jewish supremacist site interested solely in cleansing British press of any criticism of Israel and Jewish power, was boasting that the Guardian surrendered to their pressure and

‘removed an Atzmon passage.’

Apparently the Jewish site was annoyed that Khaled Diab quoted me as saying

“The Jewish state is pretty devastated by the idea that a bunch of ‘indigenous Arabs’ are far more technologically advanced than its own chosen cyber pirates.”

Specifically, it didn’t approve of the Guardian printing the word ‘chosen’ in reference to Jews.

The CIF Watch site says of itself that it is

dedicated to monitoring anti-Semitism and combatting the assault on Israel’s legitimacy in the Guardian newspaper’s

Comment is Free’ blog.” So, it is not against racism or discrimination in general, but solely interested in matters to do with one group and its tribal interests.

Shocking but typically, the Guardian surrendered immediately to the Zionist’s demands. As the Guardian rushed to admit: the word ‘chosen’ “is at odds with ‘Guardian regulations”. But the Guardian needs reminding that ‘Choseness’ may be at odds with ‘Guardian regulations’ but it is clearly not ‘at odds’ with Israeli practice, the Israeli legal system, the Jewish Lobby and even Jews-only Palestinian solidarity groups.

United Against Truth

Three months ago I published ‘The Wandering Who’. This book presented a harsh criticism of Jewish identity politics, Left, Right and Centre. It openly argued that contemporary Jewish identity politics is exclusivist, in most cases, racially driven and, in many ways, is a threat to world peace. In some ways, as in Adler’s call to assassinate Obama, it actually also endangers Jews.

The book attempts to grasp the bizarre continuum between Israeli barbarism, Adler’s homicidal inclination, the PSC EC surrender to rabid Zionist bodies and the ‘Guardian’s regulation’.  The book points to the political culture that made Jewish identity politics so powerful and, at the same time, so blind. And in spite of a united front’s attempt to silence the book and its message, in just a short space of time the book sold thousands of copies and its message is spreading like a forest fire.

I’m not one bit surprised by the surge of Jewish power. I wrote a book about it. But, being intimately familiar with Jewish history, I know exactly where it will lead. Jewish political arrogance has always proved to be, above all, devastatingly dangerous for Jews.

For the sake of peace, both Jews and gentiles must confront the prominence of Jewish identity politics. We should never be afraid to question ideologies and lobbies that impose a threat to peace, our value systems, freedom of thought, humanity and humanism.

Wondering about the Wandering Who

[Book Review by Israel Shamir of Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics]

Gilad Atzmon is larger than life; no delicate and sensitive artistic soul, he is rather a living volcano, a titan with a Rabelaisian sense of humor and enough energy to power a city. Nights, you will find him entertaining his fans in every corner of the globe with his masterful saxophone playing: tonight in Mexico City, tomorrow night in Sheffield. His days are spent producing a vast quantity of writing and blogging, sending out at least two letters a day to his many readers. His previous book,  My One and Only Love, is a very funny novel with more than a touch of the macabre and grotesque. It features a roving Israeli orchestra smuggling Nazis in double bass cases. It also contains kosher pigs, sexy spies, smelly underwear, casual killings, and a row of Israeli national leaders, all with their trousers down.

The best writings of Gilad Atzmon firmly belong to the realm of Israeli literature. His preference for writing in English attennuates his essentially Israeli character, just as Beckett remained a British writer while writing in French. His merciless goading of tender Jewish sentiments recalls the much-loved Israeli playwright, Hanoch Levin; this explains why Atzmon is enjoyed more by his country-mates than by Diaspora Jews. His newest book, The Wandering Who?  is a collection of essays that revolve around Jewish-identity politics. This subject (“what does it mean to be a Jew”) holds much fascination to people of Jewish origin. Many contemporary Jewish writers indulge in this sort of reflection, usually slipping into woe and whine mixed with self-adoration, and coated over with treacle and romanticism.

Being no delicate flower (see above), Atzmon delivers robust and forceful opinions with both hands. He regains some of the lost honesty once expressed by free thinkers and Zionists of the fin-de-siècle. Early Zionists from Nordau to Herzl provided some very frank and critical assessments of Jewish society. Yet even more critical was Otto Weininger (1880 – 1903), the tragic Viennese writer who dared to connect sex and Jews in his great bestseller Sex and Character; he followed up his success by committing suicide at the age of 23. Weininger has long been forgotten in Europe, and yet he holds a fascination for Israelis. A play by prominent Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol, Weininger’s Night (subtitled “The Soul of a Jew”) was a great hit in 1983; it was responsible for opening up Israeli theatre to the world. It was the first Israeli play ever staged in Moscow’s MXAT theatre (in 1990), directed by talented Gedalia Besser.

Atzmon has a loving and thoughtful essay about him. He provides some valuable insights. He turns Weininger’s “I dislike what I am” into “I dislike what I do”.  Atzmon sees Weininger’s suicide as an impetuous reaction against his womanly/Jewish side. Atzmon sympathizes with Weininger’s feeling that “Jewishness” is somewhat similar to “queerness”, and this provides a key to the book’s understanding.Jewish-identity musings, like gender-identity discussions, tend to fluctuate between the vulgar and the brazen; both can seem boring and repetitious unless the reader is directly involved, and perhaps even then.

The first essay of the collection has the freshness and sincerity of true testimony. The story of a young man trying to break free from his fiercely nationalist non-religious Jewish family background is akin to any man’s escape from stifling gender politics. Imagine a virile young man conceived in vitro and brought up by a sorority of lesbian activists, who has finally come of age and broken out into a rich and satisfying world of natural love. Clearly one might expect and forgive such a young man his unflattering depictions of “dykes” and “butches”, but such transgressions could never be forgiven by the sanctimonious gay activists and PC wardens who decide for us what is permissible and what is not.

This in fact has happened with Atzmon’s book: it has generated a significant amount of heated controversy. This kind of publicity is never bad for book sales. As for the author, he is no shrinking violet and quite up to the task; in fact, he is a pugnacious fellow, able to defend himself and always ready for a good brawl. Many of Atzmon’s critics seem to think that when we talk about Jews we must speak as we do about the dead: say something nice, or don’t say anything at all. And yet who should critique the activities and attitudes of the dead but the living? Banning all outsiders from the debate is a recipe for insipidity.

And yet, Atzmon is no outsider. An (ex-) Israeli, he has some first-hand knowledge, and he introduces us to a long obscured side of Jewishness, just as Jean Genet once reminded us about the backside of queerness. In Genet’s oevre we see the gender-confused men who are not saintly martyrs on their way to Auschwitz, but brutal criminals who kill and betray their friends in the hellish darkness of a jail. Though art is perhaps a better mode for such delivery.

One of his problems is that the Jewish subject is over-explored, and one treads on the footsteps of predecessors, even if one does not give them credit. The most interesting essay in the book contains Atzmon’s reflections on an essay by Milton Friedman. Friedman was curious as to why so many Jews had abandoned their historically Left-leaning socialist ways. To avoid the conclusion that Jews used to love Justice and Mercy, and now they have traded it for Power, Friedman instead posits that Jews are most naturally creatures of the Right. Friedman declares that while pure capitalism is the environment in which Jews thrive best, for one hundred years Jews were kept out of right-wing politics because the Right stood with the Church; the Left, anti-clerical and atheist, accepted them as they were. It was only after the Right was separated from the Church that Jews began to stream back into right-wing movements, and they ended up wholeheartedly embracing capitalism of the most brutal kind. This is a valuable observation, something that has yet to be learned by leftist philosemites like Seumas Milne, and by the Christian Right. The mass participation of Jews in a movement has a price, and this price is the rejection of the Christian Church.

Atzmon rejects Friedman’s conclusions: he would rather walk us through all the hypocrisies of the Jewish Left, as though a change in leadership would solve the problem. This attitude is very common among educated Israelis who have lived through the great betrayal of humanism by the left-wing parties, climaxing with labour leader Ehud Barak carrying water for Sharon and Netanyahu. Since the destruction of the Israeli Left can be directly attributed to these “traitors to the cause”, Atzmon might be forgiven for thinking that but for a crisis in leadership the Left would be still ruling the roost.

Atzmon gets carried away by his own rhetoric when he proclaims that the Jewish Left wants to seize assets of the rich just because Jews do not respect Goyim property rights. This is plainly not true: radical leftists everywhere call for the expropriation of all banks, Jewish or otherwise, and Jewish leftists are no different in this aspect. Jews are the wealthiest minority in the world; they have the most to lose in a leftist revolution. It’s apparent to everyone except Atzmon that the Jewish move to the Right is as natural as bacon.

With zeal of a born-again Christian, Atzmon offers not the smallest fig leaf of hope for good-hearted Jews. If a Jew supports the Left, he is doing it because he wants to rob wealthy Goys with Talmudic impunity. If a Jew supports the Right, it is because he wants to steal land. If a Jew supports Palestine, he is doing it in order to take over the Palestinian movement. This is a bridge too far. This sort of self-criticism should be reserved for confession. Not all Jews are that self-serving. Yes, there are hopeless wretches like Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance, leftist British Jews whose main participation in the Palestinian struggle is constrained to battling phantom antisemitism and Holocaust rhetoric, but not all Atzmon’s adversaries are paper tigers.

However, as Atzmon wrote in his essay on Weininger, one condemns one’s own faults, so perhaps this is a form of his contrition.

Atzmon is tough on Jewish tribalism, no endearing feature to be sure, but something not all rare in the Middle East. Jews are not any more tribalist than are Armenians, and no more nationalist than Georgians. This clannishness may be less common in British/American culture, but the tribal setup of immigrant croups is well known even there. Jewish success in the US and the UK cannot be explained by expounding upon Jewish insularity; a better explanation is traditional Jewish fidelity to power.

We could do with less psychologism and Portnoy’s complaints. Discussion of English or American identity and mentality does not lead to better understanding of British and American imperial policies. Likewise, policies of the World Jewry are very relevant for us, while Jewish mental attitudes are not. Who cares what Jews feel towards their neighbours? We care what the Jews do. Instead of dealing with bees, we need to know of swarms, and this is what Atzmon fails to deliver, because this brave man gets cold feet.

Atzmon is least convincing and most dull when he pedantically constructs his castle of exceptions and explanations intended to ward off the inevitable accusations of ‘hate’ and ‘racism’. He declares his preference for “accidental Jews”, i.e. people who are Jews by accident of birth. This alibi is designed to fortify his position against attack. It is as if Nietzsche added to his famous dictum (“You are going towomen? Do not forget the whip!”) a caveat “but beware some women are able to use the whip, too”. An allegoric poetic quality of writing has been ruined, and now nobody is happy. We admire Atzmon’s fierce and fearless qualities, and it’s kind of a let-down when he chooses to be prudent now and then.

One can point out several errors of fact in his book. For instance, he claims that Jews did not write any histories until the 19^th century. This is not true: Abraham Zacuto produced his History of the Jews (“Sefer Yohassin”) in the last decades of the 15^th century, and this book is available on Amazon. Still he builds some castles on this factual error, and they collapse like straw houses.

However, Atzmon’s greatest fault is narcissism, or perhaps it is a myopic solipsism. Atzmon remains locked in the very Jewish dichotomy of Jews vs. Gentiles. He does not seem to appreciate the marvellous variety of the Gentiles; he cannot recognize that the Nations of the Earth are quite different from each other. The British are not the same as the Palestinians, nor are they as French as France. And yet for Atzmon, they are all one happy crowd without specific features. In vain shall we seek to learn what are the qualities of the Palestinians that have attracted him (except perhaps the ability to make good hummus). The one all-redeeming quality that they all share is that they are not Jewish. For this reason he suggests that Jews fully adapt to the modern, generic, global cosmopolitan monoculture of multiculturalism. This is absolutely unnecessary. While we applaud acculturation, Jews should adopt the culture of the land they inhabit, become one with the folk they live with. There is no shortcut to universality. I would like to read about Atzmon hanging out with average Brits, Scouses, and Brummies, or about his adventures with Palestinian shepherds, but they are not to be found: in a diverse world, he sees only Jews.

Another problem is the absence of God. Indeed, all discourse on Jews sine God is quite useless. I am aware that in the modern British climate, if Atzmon were to publish his thoughts on God and Jews, he would not find a publisher. You may use every obscenity, but you should not mention Christ. And yet Jews are first of all a religious community; a valid analysis of Jewish identity must take religion into account. Atzmon purposely adds a disclaimer declaring he will not criticise Judaism, but this simply ducks the issue.

He does give himself permission to use the Bible against them, but his literal readings are too primitive for the sophisticated readers of the 21st century. One can’t quote bloody stories of the Conquest of Canaan from the Book of Joshua like one quotes the admissions of a criminal. So many wonderful minds have discussed these tales, from St Jerome to Edward Said, and all of them had more valuable thoughts than Atzmon has to share. Indeed, when God says: you will inherit houses you did not build and vineyards you did not plant, Atzmon says: “that’s why the Jews seized Palestine!” This is trite. We live in houses we did not build, most especially in the houses of our bodies, built by God. We enjoy many wonderful things we did not produce. For instance, we enjoy Atzmon’s saxophone, though we didn’t built it. God’s grace gave us these things. This Biblical verse reminds us all that we receive a lot of undeserved things, and that we should all work harder to justify God’s trust in us.

The bottom line is that identity musings are dry and boring stuff; Atzmon is actually a much better writer than one would conclude from reading this book. He wanted to get it off his chest. Fine! Now let us see more of his witty novels.

P.S. Naturally I side with Atzmon in his polemics against his numerous detractors, but their arguments are so senile that it would be a waste of reader’s time to dwell time and time again on the endless and fruitless assertions of ‘hate’ and ‘self-hate’. What we do is soul-searching, not hate. Non-Jews have become so over-sensitised to allegations of race hatred that they swarm with the rest even when it’s an honest discussion between Jews.

A Poison Cake

[Book Review by Israel Shamir of Melanie Phillips’ The World Turned Upside Down]

British columnist Melanie Phillips has discovered Captain Hook’s recipe and used it to prepare her recent book: it is a tempting green, but it’s dangerous to eat. Many pages can be swallowed with no ill effect, but once the reader has succumbed to Phillips’ message of spiritual comfort, the sheer poison of her conclusions sets in. The worst part is that this venom is targeted at our best and brightest, in other words, you and me.

Phillips opposes the things we oppose, and she presents our viewpoints very nicely. She rejects New Age, pagan cults, and Madonna’s “Cabbala”; she dislikes mass immigration and regrets the decline of the Church; she defends Catholics who oppose pro-homosexual schooling and adoption policies. She is against vilifying men in the name of protecting women as in the case of Julian Assange. She has baked us a cake that we can really enjoy; it’s just that the icing has been contaminated with the strychnine of Jewish Supremacy. Remember that this same Melanie Phillips was such an inspiration for the mad Norwegian murderer Breivik, who enthused about her and quoted her at length. It is not the fault of a writer, to be sure, when a fan goes off the deep end. But the poison of Breivik’s obsessive Judeophilia, the very thing that attracted him to Phillips, has been layered into her book. If you must read it, take it carefully, in small bites, as a fish nibbles away the tasty worm from the deadly steel hook.

Phillips starts with a reasonable assumption: people should be allowed to have their own opinions and speak their minds even if their traditional outlooks do not conform to post-modern ideas. As long as Phillips calls for greater tolerance for traditions that run afoul of the new hegemony, we will applaud her. Like any great liberal, she empathises with the sorrowful fates of these new dissidents: people who do not believe in Global Warming or Darwinism, who resist the charms of homosexuality, and the silent majority who still trust in God. She does not say they are right, just that they should not be persecuted.

Phillips deals well with arguments concerning Darwin, the man, and his bastard stepchildren, the modern Darwinists.  She points out that Darwinism has become a new religion divorced from reason, whose adepts are as fanatic as they come. “The belief that Creation was false did not derive from Darwinism. Darwinism derived from the belief that Creation is false”.  Darwinism is not proven, she reminds us; it is a theory that new evidence seems to disprove. She is no creationist; her heart lies withIntelligent Design (ID), a theory that appeals to many believers and doubters alike. The proponents of ID understand how unlikely it is that advanced forms of life developed on this world by pure happenstance. They employ Sherlock Holmes’ famous dictum and accept the improbable truth of an intelligent designer, whether it be our traditional concept of God or something more fashionable – like an extra-terrestrial. ID reaches across the walls that have divided modernists from the beliefs of their ancestors. Phillips points out that scientists have been sacked and their books refused publication because they had the temerity to support ID, or, increasingly, because they rejected Global Warming.

Phillips explains that Global Warming is not a certain fact but a passing fad of a theory, already disproved by many experiments, but notes that even if it were universally accepted it still would not justify the ferocious onslaught against skeptics. However, while Phillips approves of dissidents and deniers of Evolution and Climate Change, her largesse stops well short of offering the same treatment to Holocaust dissidents and deniers. She is as merciless to Holocaust doubters as Dawkins is to Evolution doubters. Phillips will not defend the scientists who deny that HIV causes AIDS. The people who doubt the official version of 9-11 will find no comfort in this book. Phillips ducks the charge of hypocrisy by labelling these theories “conspiratorial”; she refuses conspiracy “nuts” the indulgent attitude she demands for the causes she prefers. And yet Melanie Phillips is quite a denier in her own right. She denies that Bush and Blair once justified the Iraq war by invoking Saddam Hussein’s WMD (though we all remember it); she denies that Israel murdered Muhammad al Durra (though we all saw it); finally, she even denies the very existence of the Israel Lobby in the US (though we all feel its presence). For her, Walt and Mearsheimer’s sober book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is nothing more than a “modern version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

In the false dichotomy between science and faith, Phillips maintains that faith is conducive to science. “The universe is orderly”, she quotes, for it was created by God, and therefore it can be explored and its laws summarised. Excellent, we say! She has found a bedrock Logos, a definitive principle that we can apply in every circumstance. Not quite: Jewish particularism is still the tiresome exception to the rule. “It is not religion in general but the Hebrew [sic!] Bible in particular that gave rise to Western science”. She raises science up to God, and then hands it over to the Hebrews, essentially privatising the Holy Book. Why does she single out the Hebrew Tanakh? Why not the Greek Septuagint, or the LatinVulgata? Why not the entire King James Version? Because, explains Phillips, there is a perfect marriage of religion and reason in Judaism. She is apparently completely unaware that the Jews had no idea of science before it came to them through their host nations. Likewise, Jewish ideological and theological advances were as a rule borrowed from their Christian and Muslim neighbours, whether we speak of the rationalist Maimonides or the mystical Cabbalists. In the 15^th century, Jewish scientist Abraham Zacuto described how the Jews had picked up their scientific knowledge from the Gentiles. Phillips is too quick to trade history for ideology.

Phillips then confronts the current situation in England. She does not like what she sees: the subversion of the Church of England, the mass immigrations, the drop in educational standards, the unravelling of culture, the waves of divorces and abortions. Who is going to disagree with that? England is certainly in dire straits. Neoliberal policies have undermined the toughest folk on earth: the hard-working, prudent, obedient, stiff-lipped and red-faced Brits; the people who once managed India, once burned down the White House and once stood up to Hitler’s fury. The British backbone, the Yorkshire miners and Sheffield steel workers, has been broken by their Golders Green grocer-at-large, a.k.a. the Iron Lady. Thatcher shuttered UK industries and turned the Isles into a Tortuga-like pirate’s paradise, a place for financiers to relax, unwind and plan their raids. England has become home base to al Fayed and Abramovich and to the millions of immigrants imported to service them.

England has become the most godless society in the world. Buses emblazoned with There’s probably no God cruise London. In the Globe theatre, medieval British plays are still staged (The Mysteries, purported to be a revival of Tony Harrison’s 1977 production) but eerily different: today’s versions are overtly anti-Christian. The Holy Virgin is now represented as a young coloured tart in a short dress. Instead of the Jewish high priest and his coterie, the antagonists are now Christian priests in full dress. Not a single voice of protest has sounded in England. But you can be sure that if director Deborah Bruce had left the rabbis in their traditional places, we’d never have heard the end of it.

For me, it’s a sign of the total victory of the Jewish spirit, a spirit that was extolled by Milton Friedman and rejected by Karl Marx: the spirit of financial capitalism. The Jews have won all their battles: they promoted immigration, supported Thatcher, stood next to Friedman, denied Christ and dismantled the welfare state. The results for the vast majority were awful, as they are every time Jews win. But Melanie Phillips prefers to not assign blame. For her, these common observations are nothing more than ad hominem attacks against Jewry: “The precepts of Judaism, the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people are the underlying target in the uproar over social, cultural and moral issues, manmade global warming, Darwinism, the Iraq War, and of course Israel”. Her chutzpah does not stop there; she claims that the “bedrock values of Western civilisation rest upon and are deeply intertwined with the teachings and fate of the Jewish people”.

Any little bird will see a tsunami as a personal disaster while dismissing destroyed cities as collateral damage. This is how Phillips sees the world: “Although in the war between materialism and religion the frontline casualty has been Christianity, the real target has been the faith of the Hebrew Bible”. This incredibly myopic statement lays bare her essential philosophy. Phillips is morbidly Judeocentric and narcissistic, both prominent Jewish qualities. If tomorrow’s headline in the Times screams “NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST: TWO BILLION PEOPLE KILLED”, she would fire off a quick letter to the editor objecting to the use of the H-word, for “how can you compare!”

For her, the Jews are always right. If they have a fault, it is that they are too kind, too good and too eager to please. While Phillips makes it clear that Jews are suffering along with the rest of us, she does not seem to understand that many of these Jews actively (and publicly) worked to bring the UK and the US to ruin. Why did they do it? They did it because they did not understand that they would also suffer as society unravels. They thought, as in the Jewish joke, everywhere will be Saturday but the rabbis will remain in a perennial Friday. A tiny minority of Jews came out on top; the rest pay the price for their vocal support of their brethren.

Phillips dedicates a few chapters to the Middle East. She adores the Jewish state, hates Palestinians and Muslims in general. She quotes the same sources Breivik did in his Manifesto and comes to his same conclusions. If you have read Frontline Magazine, you are familiar with this kind of screed. When Phillips opposes modern materialism you might take her for a nice churchy lady from the Home Counties, but when she touches on Islam and Jews she turns into a screaming fury.

Her hatred of Palestinians (why can’t they just go away?) helps us understand her vision of Christianity. Philips is not against Christianity per se (or she would write for a different audience); she imagines for us a thoroughly Judaised, subdued Christianity-for-Goyim, a lower-tier entry-level faith for non-Jews. Adherents of Melanie Phillips’ Christianity-Lite will daily ask the Lord that He permit them to better serve the Jews. She denies Replacement Theology (Supersessionism), even though this is at the root of Christian dogma. She is shocked that Christians consider themselves to be the True Israel. What about the Jews, she shrills. Educated Christians understand that modern-day Jews have no valid claim on the title Israel (the Chosen People of God); they are false pretenders. The title belongs now and forever to the Christian Church [for more, see Cabbala of Power].

The most striking thing in Melanie Phillips’ book is her obsession with the extended Jewish Nation: for her, the absolute centrality of the Jews in this world is a given. She exactly mirrors the atheist (though still Jew-obsessed) thinkers of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries that wanted to reform the Jews. Neither seem to understand that for Christians, there is no Jewish Question that needs to be solved, nor should we put them on a pedestal. For us, Jews are not central. They are a powerful faction that generally supports society’s anti-Christian tendencies, without being its centre. Phillips proves beyond a doubt that when Jews start cooking with Christianity, the result is pure poison.

It’s A Win-Win Situation!

It was a few years ago that I grasped that Zionism was just one manifestation of Jewish political power in the West. But at the time, hardly anyone was either brave or stupid enough to tackle the topic. In spite of Israel defining itself as the ‘Jewish State’, despite the fact that the warplanes that dropped their bombs on Palestinian civilians were covered in Jewish symbols, still no one was willing to openly ask exactly what Jewishness was all about or what it stood for – and those few who did dare to raise the question were subject to total abuse until they took cover or just faded away.

It’s also been clear for quite a while that many Palestinian solidarity activists, intellectuals and academics have been begging for recognition from mainstream Western institutions. For obvious reasons, many of us have been fearful of open confrontation with exponents of Zionist power, whether mainstream Zionist media organisations or even those AZZ (Anti Zionist Zionists) who have managed to lodge themselves so comfortably within our ranks.

But recently things have changed and the popularity of my book ‘The Wandering Who’ (TWW) is just one example of that clear shift in consciousness. Somehow, we have lost our fear, somehow we have found the courage to say what we know to be the truth.

I’ve been engaged with Jewish identity politics issues for over a decade now but it was  back in 2003 that I realised that total and uncompromised opposition to any form Jewish of identity politics was the only way forward. I also realised that I might be able to expose the framework of Jewish political infrastructure, not only within Israel but also within Zionist organisations, Western politics, Western media and the so-called Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network.  And it didn’t take long to realize I was in a true win-win situation. If they managed to destroy me, it would merely prove my point about their overwhelming influence but if they failed to neutralize me, that could only mean that Jewish power was disintegrating – which was exactly what I set out to achieve.

Three month ago I published TWW – a compilation of my thinking and probably one of the most damning criticisms of Jewish identity politics-left, right and centre – ever. Needless to say, all hell broke loose.

Since late September, I’ve been chased and harassed by just about every possible exponent of Jewish power and advocate of Israel and Zionism. The ADL, The Jewish Chronicle, The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the crypto-Zionist ‘anti’ racist Hope not Hate, Alan Dershowitzthe Zionist mouthpiece and veteran IDF concentration camp guardJeffrey Goldberg. Suimilarly, Ynet, Islamophobic Harry’s Place, The Board of Deputies of British Jews – all have worked closely together in a desperate attempt to bring down both my book and myself. But they were not alone. As I suggest in TWW there is a clear continuum between Zionism and Jewish ‘anti’ Zionism and certain elements within the Left. The Hasbara campaign against me was joined by the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists aka AZZ and even by a few of Zionism’s Sabbath Goyim such as one Richard Seymour (for some reason convinced he is the true reincarnation of Lenin).

The Book Burners

Each morning brought a new assault. First, they mounted pressure on my publisher to pull the book. But Zero is made of sterner stuff. Even whenten of their authors threatened to leave, Zero held firm. But this initial failure did not damp the Zionists’ enthusiasm – in fact they stepped up the campaign. Now they tried to stop my talks and concerts, even campaigning against music festivals around the world. Of course again they failed but again they didn’t stop. Desperately they tried to halt the distribution of the book. In vain, they begged my growing list of endorsers to retract.  But again, in each and every turn, they failed.

I was rather encouraged by their relentless attempts. The more they campaigned, the more copies were sold, the more they harassed, the more people realised how accurately the book  describes the Jewish political continuum and the uglier their tactics were, the more people joined me.

The fact is, neither my publisher nor myself has spent a penny on promotion. We left our entire promotional campaign in the safe hands of the Jewish Chronicle, Jeffrey Goldberg, AZZ and Alan Dershowitz – and they did not disappoint. So far, the book has sold thousands. It has been read by most English-speaking Palestinian solidarity and anti war activists and within a year, the book will be available in most European languages. But best of all, the orchestrated Jewish campaign has proved beyond any doubt the accuracy of every single point made in the book about Jewish identity politics.

But, one wonders, why did they fail? Is it possible that Dershowitz and the Board of Deputies of British Jews are totally blind to the consequences of their actions? The answer is a resounding ‘yes’. Self-blindness is inherent to supremacist identity politics. As Deir Yassin Remembered’s Paul Eisen recently wrote, “You are so busy being clever that you’ve forgotten to look into the eyes of the other”. And this blindness has so often had catastrophic results. For as much as Jewish politics is fuelled by Jewish suffering, it is, at the same time, totally blind to the circumstances that has caused Jewish history to be characterized by an endless chain ofshoas.

But also they failed because, quite simply, the tide has changed. We now experience an ever-growing fatigue with Jerusalemite lies and the Zionification of both our cultural life and political  discourse. We want to reinstate the spirit of Athens – those precious notions of pluralism, universalism and ethics  – not the Old Testament’s  interventionist ‘righteousness’ explored by different ‘ways of deception’ known to us all as ‘Hasbara’.

So, TWW spreads like a forest fire, not because it’s particularly innovative but because it discusses those matters with which each of us has been concerned for a very long time. We say nowenough is enough. We do not wish to hear again and again about antisemitism, the holocaust and the primacy of Jewish suffering – It is actually Islamophobia and the Palestinian shoa about which we all care.

My many detractors are afraid that the popularity of TWW will lead to a shift in the Palestinian solidarity discourse. They obviously don’t get it. It’s actually the other way around. The popularity of TWW is but a manifestation of that very shift within our discourse. So, rather than compromising, and searching desperately for that least offensive way to put it, activists and intellectuals are now competing for who can say it most ‘like it is’. We are there to touch raw nerves. Our world is in a volatile state and if we want to save it, we’d better say what we think – we’d better call a spade a spade.

Jews are of course most welcome in our rapidly changing movement – theyare precious to us and we are responsible for them too. But let’s be clear: we need no Kosher stamp. Gatekeeping is a thing of the past. No longer will their Hasbara campaign be tolerated. So rather than try to steer us, Jews must march with us.

We are indeed in a win-win situation. And it’s all because we know that truth is on our side.

Dershowitz’ Lies and Glitches

Rabid Zionist Alan Dershowitz is devastated by the success of ‘The Wandering Who’. He just cannot accept that professors and academicsendorse the book “as ‘brilliant,’ ‘fascinating,’ ‘absorbing,’ and ‘moving’,” In his latest articlehe 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 whyJulius 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 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. I actually elaborate philosophically on issues to do with temporality, ‘being in time’, the meaning of the past and the significance of history. 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.

Are They Really ‘The People Of The Book’?

Ahead of the publication of my “The Wandering Who” the entire Zionist network is in a total panic. Veterans Today’s senior Editor Gordon Duff  commented yesterday that just a ‘few books have been opposed as this one has’. He may as well be right.

It started last  Friday, with the Hasbara mouthpiece “Jewish Chronicle” of London attacking Professor Mearsheimer for endorsing a book ‘by an antisemite’.

I don’t know how many times do I have to mention that I am not an antisemite for I really  hate everyone equally. For some reason, my detractors refuse to take this simple message on board.

Then, the Islamophobic agent-provocateur “Harry’s place” — who never miss a chance to muddy the water — joined in, intimidating and harassing  a London academic  just because she tweeted that she likes Atzmon’s book

Just before London Tea Time, America woke up. Within the hour, her Zionist stooges were ready to join the campaign. EX- IDF concentration camp guard Jeffrey Goldberg* had a clear plan to chew Professor John J. Mearsheimer circulating the same banal andunsubstantiated accusations.

At that stage, it appeared to be a campaign that was run by hundreds of Zionist enthusiasts – but if one scratches the surface, it was actually an orchestrated move of barely more than five Jewish bloggers, who have managed to mobilise another twenty or so book burners or shall we call them ‘wandering  sockpuppets’ that habitually attack in different areas of the net and the press, co-coordinating to harass, bully and intimidate, with the same dull, repetitive, accusations, ‘arguments’ and smears.

By Sunday night the Guardian published an appalling piece by oneAndy Newman of Swindon , who, according to one of his “Socialist Unity” editors, attacked Atzmon simply to appease the relentlessly Islamophobic “Harry’s Place” public.

Top columnist and Middle East analyst Jonathan Cook reacted to the Guardian smear saying, “whatever one thinks of Atzmon, this is clearly a smear job of him (and Alison Weir). Where is the evidence, or even convincing argument, for the claims being made?  It is pure Pravda.” Not exactly a flattering comment on the Guardian.

By then it was clear that  Islamophobic Award winning Harry’s Placewasn’t going to stop.

In fact Harry Place’s, Goldberg and JC collective shameless tantrum is exploredin The Wandering Who. I define it as ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Syndrome,’ as opposed to Post Traumatic stress syndrome. They are all terrorized and genuinely traumatized by a book they refuse to read with the hope that the Goyim may surrender and ban it on their behalf.

On Monday afternoon, Professor Mearsheimer published acomplete expose  of  Goldberg’s lameness and the  tactics he and his ilk use against myself and others. They quote out of context, they ‘copy and paste’, they forge paragraphs, they deliberately and consciously attribute misleading meanings. In fact, none of those who reacted to the book negatively has read the book or any of my papers. They all refer to quotes that were picked arbitrarily from the ‘Amazon Lookinside page’. I find myself wondering, are these people really the ‘People of the Book’? I guess that People of  the ‘Copy & Paste’ is a much  better description for  Goldberg  and his wandering sockpuppets.

Within minutes after Mearsheimer revealed the typical deceitful operation, the wandering sockpuppets were called in to fight Mearsheimer and Walt at the “Foreign Affair Journal” site. By the time they finished posting their filth, the respected magazine comment section looked indeed like a cyber shtetle.

In a final  desperate attempt to jeopardize the publication of the book and to silence its author. Richard Seymour AKA ‘Lenin Thumb’,  authored a new antiAtzmon manifesto  

I read Richard ‘Lenin’ Seymour’s  text with interest and found out that for some reason, both ‘avant-garde revolutionary’  Seymour’s text, and Guardian’s ‘socialist’  Andy Newman’s drivel are suspiciously far too similar to the unforgettable ‘Aaronovitch Reading Atzmon’ performance at the Oxford Literature Festival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc371iqJ5Jk

One may wonder how come Seymour, an alleged revolutionary radical Marxist, Andy Newman, a mediocre socialist  and Neocon pro war Aaronovitch are caught together naked holding ideological  hands.

How is it that the three try  to prevent myself and others from criticising Jewish political lobbying. For some reason they also don’t want us to look closely into the events that led to the financial turmoil. How is it possible that a hard core Zionist and ultra radical leftists are not only employing the same ideological argument but also performing the exact same tactics?  Clearly, there is an obvious ideological and political continuum between Aaronovitch, Newman and Seymour. The Wandering Who  scrutinizes this very continuum.

Zionism clearly  maintains and sustains  its ‘radical left opposition’ and the logos behind such a tactic is simple- ‘revolutionary’ left is totally irrelevant to both the conflict and its resolution. Hence, Zionists cannot dream of an easier opposition to handle. When the Zionists detect a dangerous rising intellect who aims at the truth, they obviously utilize and mobilize the Jewish left together with the few willing Sabbath Goyim executioners to gatekeep the emerging danger. Seymour, Newman and a just few others are always happy to slay the emerging intellect.

Indeed they were effective for years. From an intellectual perspective our movement is pretty much a desert. Every deep thinker we have ever had has been targeted and destroyed by the Jewish Left and their Sabbath Goyim.  But for some reason, they somehow failed with me. My views on Palestine and Israel are now circulated on most dissident journals and my book The Wandering Who is endorsed by the most important people scholars and activists in our discourse.

So far, all efforts to stop the book have fallen apart . There is no sign of anyone pulling the book out but there are clear signs that the Hasbara orchestrated campaign has backfired. No one surrendered to the Zionist campaign and its stooges. As they said in Tahrir Square, ‘we have lost our fear.’   The Wandering Who is now a best seller for more than a week (as far as Amazon ranking can tell). On the Jewish best seller list, it is even more popular than the Babylonian Talmud and the Torah. I guess that this is indeed a great concern for Zionists and  their stooges, but there is nothing they can do about it.

Goldberg vs. Mearsheimer

Professor John Mearsheimer is subject to a Zionist-trans-Atlantic-attack for supporting my latest book The Wandering Who.

Earlier this year John Mearsheimer, the highly respected international relations theorist and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, wrote the following preliminary front matter for my book:

‘Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.’

It seems as if the Zio-cons on both sides of the pond are now in a state of panic — In an obviously orchestrated attack, the  Zionist mouthpiece  The Jewish Chronicle of London,  the Islamophobic Award winning  ‘Harry’s Place’ and the ex-Israeli concentration camp guardJeffrey Goldberg* , all launched a typical Hasbara smear & intimidation  campaign, in which they labeled both Professor Mearsheimer and myself anti Semites. I was also called a ‘neo Nazi’, a ‘Hitler apologist,’ a ‘Holocaust denier’ and a ‘hatemonger’.

To be honest, it is somewhat amusing that an ex concentration camp guard like Goldberg should label me a ‘Hitler apologist’ or a  ‘Holocaust denier’: after all, since Goldberg is an ardent pro-war Zionist who openly and enthusiastically supports a Jews-only, racist, expansionist state, it is clear that he is actually the one who is an advocate of a distinctly Nazi-like ideology and practice.

In addition, I learned from Goldberg that Adam Holland (yet another notorious Zionist zealot), also cannot quite believe that Professor’ Mearsheimer would endorse my book.

Adam Holland wrote:  “I had trouble believing that a distinguished professor at one of the world’s greatest universities would link himself to a hatemonger like Atzmon. So I sent Professor Mearsheimer an email quoting the blurb and asking him to verify its accuracy.  I also gave him an opportunity to amend it or add to it.  Here’s what he ( Mearsheimer) wrote back:

“The blurb below is the one I wrote for ‘The Wandering who’ and I have no reason to amend it or embellish it, as it accurately reflects my view of the book.” John J. Mearsheimer

What is clear to the rest of us is that our Zionist detractors are fighting a lost battle. I really wonder what they hope to achieve: after all, those who have taken the time to actually read my work know very well that there is no hatred, no anti Semitism, and no racism in my entire body of work. Instead, I believe that truth is a dynamic process – I believe in the power of reason and in free debate.

If Jeffrey Goldberg has any dignity left at all, then he should start again — He should apologise to Professor Mearsheimer, myself, the Palestinians, and to humanity.  He would do better to also try to present an argument, and if he actually has anything to say, he would be best advised to then learn how to argue and encounter in debate.

Next Page »