Palestine Think Tank

The First of Two Parts WRITTEN BY ROY RATCLIFFE

The catalyst leading to the production of this paper was the suggestion of a boycott of an Exeter University student ’Friends of Palestine’ event in May 2008. The suggestion was made by at least one Exeter Socialist because it was alleged that one of the participants, Gilad Atzmon, is an anti-Semite. The charges against Gilad Atzmon were extended to include links with other alleged anti-Semites, Fascists and Holocaust deniers. We were not urged to read the actual articles by Gilad Atzmon, but to read polemics against him. This was not the first time such remarks had been made, but it was the first time in mid-Devon that this had been translated into a proposal for action against solidarity work for Palestine. This suggestion marked a potentially serious transition from polemic to practical obstruction. Given a long background in activist campaigns I had heard many charges (which later turned out to be false) from within solidarity movements which not only poisoned the atmosphere putting many people off solidarity work and activism, but split and weakened the movements. Having only heard about the various people involved in this particular case, but not knowing them personally, I decided the only sensible way forward was to investigate both sides of the dispute. With this in mind, I initially obtained five copies of articles by Gilad Atzmon and five polemics against him. They later increased to six and then seven. After reading them thoroughly, examining other relevant background material and clarifying the terms being used, I came to the conclusion that the charges as stated were unfounded. However, as I studied the articles and background material further it also became increasingly clear that (any differences in personality apart) the articles which had caused ‘offence’ and polemics against them, revealed two differing and diametrically opposed value systems. In the following sections I will outline the definitions I think appropriate to evaluate the charges, explain my reasoning, indicate and utilise the material I suggest is relevant to such a debate, justify my conclusions and consider possible motivations for the charges.

1. INTRODUCTION

The boycott suggestion was later withdrawn but not before written discussions took place which displayed more heat than light, more emotion than reason. In addition, the term ‘obnoxious’ applied to Gilad Atzmon, by the Exeter socialist may well have ‘turned off’ even those not committed to either side of this dispute. The situation also became a complex one in which article and email ‘extracts’ appeared to have been selected and links to other writers made in an apparent attempt to dualistically ’lump’ everyone who disagrees with a certain point of view into the same category of Judeophobia (anti-Semitism) Holocaust denier or even soft on ‘Fascism’ in order to have them and their views completely dismissed.[1] Even the suggestion of caution and serious evaluation was dismissed out of hand. However, such emotionally charged polemics are seldom successful for they miss out the obvious. The real world doesn't work like that. The ‘danger’ with anti-humanist views is precisely that they are seldom all wrong or false. Anyone wishing to gain a large following (and thus become a danger) or a moderate one (and just become a nuisance), must construct a clever argument which contains many elements of reality which speaks to the knowledge, experience or the emotions of those they seek to influence. In those cases it is the conclusions which are reached that give the game away. Since the link with Fascism was made, it is worth utilising this aspect to illustrate the point. An analysis of Hitler’s, Mein Kampf - dismissed by some as a load of racist, lunatic ranting - reveals why so many people followed the Nazis. A copy of Mein Kampf was in almost every German home at one time and although not everyone read it or the whole of it, it was a widely read book and many Germans were taken in with it. We cannot simply write large numbers of German people off as fools who naively swallowed a load of manic racist propaganda without adopting a superior or racist prejudice ourselves. There must have been something in the whole Nazi enterprise that spoke to the experience and needs of the German people and was attractive to them. Let us dare to read a section of Mein Kampf without apprehension of being labelled a closet Fascist.

“It is not the aim of our present-day parliamentarianism to constitute an assembly of wise men, but rather to compose a band of mentally dependent nonentities who are the more easily led in certain directions, the greater is the personal limitations of the individual. That is the only way of carrying on party politics in the malodorous present-day sense. And only in this way is it possible for the real wirepuller to remain carefully in the background and never personally to be called to responsibility. For then every decision, regardless of how harmful to the nation, will not be set to the account of a scoundrel visible to all, but will be unloaded on the shoulders of a whole faction.” (Mein Kampf. Pimlico. p 83).

If this was a reasonably accurate description of German parliamentary system at the time, then it is easy to see how this would appear to speak to the experience of many German people. Indeed it goes some way to accurately describing our own British parliamentary system in modern times - particularly concerning behind the scenes responsibility for dodgy dossiers. Hitler only needed to graft onto such statements his own and others, Judeophobic obsession, which incidentally landed in the well-manured ideological soil of ‘Jews as Christ killers’ tilled by centuries of dominant European Catholic and later Protestant (particularly Lutheran) ideology taken directly from the New Testament gospels. When Hitler also added ideas like the following;

“Thus, the task of the state towards capital was comparatively simple and clear; it only had to make certain that capital remain the handmaiden of the state and not fancy itself the mistress of the nation. This point of view could then be defined between two restrictive limits: preservation of a solvent, national, and independent economy on the one hand, assurances of the social rights of the workers on the other.” (ibid p 190).

We can begin to see some of the attraction for even many socialists and trade unionists among the German people. Capital was going to be harnessed and workers’ rights assured. Nazi views at that point in the depressed German economy might not have appeared entirely bizarre to many ordinary Germans, particularly those who were not inclined to study things thoroughly and to those accustomed to trust popular shortened second-hand versions, and the ‘wisdom‘ of their priests, pastors or 'leading comrades'. A similar perspective emerges with a study of Italian Fascism. So we can see that from even this extreme example it is simply insufficient to merely spot something wrong with an argument and then dismiss it entirely as crank thinking and unlikely to succeed, as many communists and socialists did with Nazi propaganda in Germany in the 1930‘s. Not only are such sweepingly dismissive categorisations always intellectually shallow, they are insufficient to understand an arguments attraction and ineffective in combating it. It is necessary to establish what is valid, what is invalid and the direct link to erroneous conclusions reached by any anti-humanist tendency. Even then this may not successfully isolate the tendency - for other factors may also be driving it, such as self-interest or impervious prejudice. However, there is no chance of combating it or of effective learning and evaluation if thoroughness is omitted. So when we are faced with demands to demonise or ignore someone on the basis of assertions backed up by carefully selected quotations we should be cautious and careful. But more than that, we need to be thorough and in order to be thorough we need to state our definitions and examine the issue closely.

2. DEFINITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

In any discussion on what constitutes Judeophobia (or anti-Semitism)[2] it is necessary to define the terms being used and to distinguish these from what constitutes reasoned criticism from within a humanist perspective. It has to be from within a humanist position, for reasoned criticism from within a religious, ethnic or national perspective would unavoidably reason from within a narrow or possibly prejudiced outlook. In addition, we need definitions in order to distinguish what may be hurtful from what is phobic. We need to bear in mind that truthful criticism can be hurtful without necessarily being phobic. Speaking truth to power, as all solidarity movements need to do, is fraught with difficulties and any broad movement of solidarity will contain criticisms which some within it might find press against their own individual comfort zone. In fact viewed positively discomforting criticism can be a source of learning and tolerance. To distinguish between realistic and phobic utterances, after reading Schafer, I suggest that the following categories of criticism used within a universalistic humanist framework are a useful starting point.

a) Realistic. That arising from reasoned criticism. This is criticism (and even hostility) which utilises reliable and verifiable information but strictly limits this criticism to those aspects of the culture, religion or behaviour, to which the information applies.

b) Xenophobic. That arising from ‘undue fear’ or prejudiced criticism. This is criticism (and hostility) which may be to some extent based upon particular reliable and verifiable information, but which is generalised and then applied to all aspects of the culture, religion or behaviour.

c) Chimeric. That arising from unreal or invented criticism. This is criticism which is not supported by reliable or verifiable information but is based upon unwarranted assertions, fantasies, figments of the imagination or deliberate falsifications also applied generally to the whole culture, religion and behaviour.

Although the problem with definitions is that they can still be too general, the ones suggested will at least allow some level of useful evaluative debate to be undertaken. The categories, of course, would serve to assess any form of phobic prejudice whether based on gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability. They are equally applicable and they are the ones I shall use to evaluate and assess the various statements which are alleged to be manifestations of Judeophobia. Judeophobic criticism will therefore be allegations, assertions or narratives arising from Chimeric - unreal, or invented characteristics applied to the whole culture or Xenophobic where some particular characteristic or fear is unduly generalised to apply to all. Since a link has been made between Judeophobia and the danger of a resurgence of Fascism we need also to have a clearer definition of Fascism.

d) Defining Fascism

In the long histories of community systems there have been two opposed viewpoints or tendencies. One has put or promoted the interests of individuals above the collective and the other, more common, has put the interests of the collective over the individual. Modern Capital dominated societies (despite a rhetoric of individualism) have tended in practice, if not theory to mix the two. The interests of capital and its owners have usually been placed above, and often beyond the state, whilst the state has held the working and middle-classes in various forms of subordination, particularly to the laws safeguarding capital and its owners. In the 19th and 20th centuries three more modern views of what might be called collectivism were conceived. The first was that introduced by Marx (and some anarchists), which called for the overthrow of capital, the seizing of the state, its abolition and the collective aspect run by integrated but largely autonomous economic and social communities. However, this model has certainly not been followed. But what did emerge and flourish in the 20th century were two forms of collectivist models in which the interests of individuals were emphatically subordinated to the collective (in the form of the state).

The first was Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism and the second Fascism. Soon after gaining power Bolshevik Leninism abolished all political parties except its own, collectivised capital and subordinated this and all citizens to state control that was staffed by an ideologically committed sectarian political elite. Fascism also after gaining power quickly abolished all political parties except its own, subordinated all citizens to state control that was staffed by an ideologically racist elite but left capital in private, but state directed, hands. Both were forms of totalitarian government by elites even though they differed on many other aspects. Twentieth Century Fascism in its basic foundations is nothing other than Capitalist Collectivism organised from within a nation state armed with an elitist/racist ideology. In both cases citizens have to willingly accept (and millions did) or be forced (as millions were) to accept that their role is to serve not their own family or wider humanitarian needs but the needs of the state. Under Fascism, all other differentiating characteristics, mediated by separate cultural, historical or geographical factors, such as racism or Aryan supremacy, aggressive expansionism etc., fall under these two fundamental premises - supremacy of the state over individuals and capital controlled by individuals. As a consequence of accepting their subordination to the needs of the state, citizens in a Fascist state are required not to think independently but to accept instructions from above. His or her intelligence, energy and aptitudes of each citizen are only utilised to carry out the received instructions - rather like the armed forces in ancient (as per Sun Tzu) to modern times. The Italian version being ’Believe, Obey, Fight’. This subordination is something requiring constant monitoring, control, correction and - in intractable cases - a separation of dissenting voices to concentration camps. These latter are also features in common with Stalinism, only those Soviet places of detention were called Gulags. The Fascist mentality, which desires this ultimate state of affairs, either wholly or partly, like the sectarian mentality, is violent, intolerant, prejudiced, aggressive, often religious or semi-religious and frequently devious.[3] Violence and intolerance is the very emotional essence of Fascism, sectarianism and religious extremism.

e) Historical revisionism

The polemics around whether Gilad Atzmon and others in Deir Yassin (for example) are Judeophobic and in sympathy with Fascism have dragged in another category which has been termed ‘holocaust revisionism’ by some and ‘holocaust denial’ by others. This difference can also seem confusing but it can be made clearer providing we remember a few things. First of all, historical narratives are more or less always created for the purpose of enhancing one group (usually the most powerful) and of demeaning another. Thus the history of European colonialism was once crudely extolled as bringing civilisation to the backward peoples of the world, saving them for God and later uniting them into a ‘commonwealth’ of nations. The British form of this narrative was still promoted when I was at school, but was increasingly challenged, and the historical record revised to draw a different conclusion and write a different narrative. European colonial history was revised sufficiently to indicate that the period was one in which a form of economic exploitation of human and natural resources was ruthlessly carried out by genocidal warfare and slavery. There are many more examples of religious and political historical narratives, which have been challenged and redefined. The ‘glorious triumph’ of humane ‘socialism’ under Stalin in Soviet Russia is another. There is nothing new in historical revisionism and although it is frequently a highly charged and contested process - at least in the early stages - it is an essential part of the human endeavour. It is impossible to impede it and we should not try. Secondly however, we need to be on our guard, because some people will attempt to distort the emerging understanding to serve their own interests. Some may try to make out the situation was worse than it was, others that it was not as bad as it was, some that bad things did not take place at all. However, just because this is a danger we cannot condemn the process nor can we hope to outlaw it. It will continue in the open or in secret. We can only take part in it (if we so wish) and try to counter and correct any distortions coming from those with a motive to distort the narrative one way or another. In an article about his book ‘Holocaust Industry’ the author declared;

“Finally, I emphatically believe that the Nazi holocaust should be studied. Yet one cannot learn anything substantive until and unless the Holocaust industry is shut down. Meaningful historical inquiry practically requires that comparisons be made.” (Interview with Norman Finklestein).

Revising the historical record on the Shoah or ’Holocaust’ to include new elements not previously included, and exclude inventions or falsifications for which there is no evidence whatsoever cannot be outlawed in a society wishing to retain any semblance of free speech. Indeed, so free is speech that religious Jews, such as Rabbi Blau, have even blamed the Jews themselves (both Zionist and non-Zionist) for the Shoah/Holocaust. E.g.;

“I repeat that the Holocaust came as a retribution for Zionist sinning.” (Rabbi Blau. Quoted in Rabkin. ‘A Threat from Within’ p 174).

In this more Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist view, the Gentile Fascists in Germany were only acting as God’s agents in His decision to punish the Jews for their sins against Him. In other words, the Jews brought it on themselves and God as the all powerful agency used the Nazis to commit these acts.[4] Whilst I strongly disagree with that almost nihilist statement and concept myself it has not been declared an illegitimate part of the complex and contested understanding of this history which is being revised from many contradictory directions. Some insights will no doubt be judged more useful than others, but we cannot judge that until they have been made public. Denying that the ’Holocaust’ and its genocidal intent ever took place or excusing it is a different matter. Just as denying the Nakba and the genocidal intent of Zionism in 1948 or excusing it is another matter. Such denials and excuses can only be condemned. So this issue together with asserted anti-Semitism and alleged sympathy with Fascism are the issues I will now consider.

3. THE POLEMICS

a) Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance

One of the papers we were referred to was one by Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance, entitled ‘Anti-Semitism is not the answer‘. In it the authors accuse Gilad Atzmon of showing “all the enthusiasm of a child with a new toy” (§ 1). This emotional and dismissive tone is repeated in paragraph 12 where his article is called a ‘diatribe’. He is then accused of claiming that Israel as a ‘Jews-only’ state is therefore “fascist”. (§ 2 and § 4.). They say;

“…Atzmon‘s reasoning, such as it is, is that the state is fascist.” (§ 4)

No direct quotations from Gilad Atzmon’s article to that effect are reproduced. However, I found the article and indeed Gilad Atzmon makes that claim. The authors then say they agree with Gilad that Israel is ‘racist, expansionist, genocidal and relegates the Arab to the category of non-human. Actually official Israeli behaviour does parallel German extreme Fascism in more ways than those four. Many Israeli citizens (in their various capacities) also put into practice techniques such as verbal assault; physical assault (including detention and torture); legal and administrative measures to isolate Palestinians from Jews; pressure on Palestinians to emigrate; forced deportations and ‘resettlements’; physical separation in crowded Ghetto-like enclaves; indirect killing through starvation, debilitation and disease; and direct killing through targeted assassinations - as did German Fascists. Another notable feature of the state of Israel which is almost parallel with the Nazi regime, is its racist, separatist ideology. The Nazis stood for the exclusivity and predominance of the Aryan/Germanic citizen. Everyone else was denied the same rights as this Germanic elitist category. The fact that the ideology of Zionism and citizenship in the Israeli state is also restricted to Jews, and everyone else is denied the same rights mirrors this Fascist form.

Despite all this similarity it seems to me also that it still may not be strictly accurate to describe Israel as Fascist state, for it has yet to fully comply with the definition of Capitalist Collectivism noted above. For example, the Zionist state of Israel does not require the complete submission of citizens - except within the Armed forces. Its citizens are allowed to think independently - although this has been made difficult. Intractable dissenting voices - with the exception of Vanunu and Palestinians - are not routinely locked away but are just harassed sufficiently to get them to leave and are then refused re-entry. There is no concept of ‘malicious denigration’ in Israel, and the charge of anti-Semitism (or self-hating Jew) used in a similar way does not have an official death sentence attached to it. So although the Israeli state may not be a fascist state, the pattern of behaviour by Zionists, particularly many of those in Israel is extremely close to the pattern of fascists. We need to ask: how far does racist brutality have to go to be described as Fascist? In thinking this over, bear in mind that Mussolini’s regime in Italy did not go to the extremes the Nazis did and yet it is correct to call this Fascism and its supporters fascists, according to the above definition. The state of Israel may not have quite gone the full distance required to mirror the essentials of the Fascist state of the Nazis or Mussolini, but in some views it has not too far to go. I would not judge such a definition by Gilad Atzmon as outrageously wide of the mark or beyond the pale.[5] Indeed, in making such general or categorical comparisons he would not be the first. Some Orthodox Haredim and Reform Jews were the first to compare Zionist to the Nazis and Yeshayahu Leibowitz referred to settler vigilantes as 'judeo-Nazis'. (For further early examples of this analogy see Rabkin Y.M. 'A Threat from Within', particularly chapter 6).

This part of the polemic by Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance against Gilad Atzmon also reveals a problematic and disquieting formulation. It contains reference by them to Israeli Arabs, (§ 5 and § 7). I really wonder about the use of this term, for this is how the Zionists define those Palestinians who remained in what was to become Israel. I thought supporters of Palestine would have referred to them as Palestinian citizens of the Israeli state, for they are frequently the Palestinians (or their ancestors) dispossessed from the 1948. Since this whole issue revolves around definitions and whose definition is to be accepted, I would have thought it more useful not to use Zionist or Israeli preferred definitions. As I see it, the term ‘Israeli Arabs’ is another attempt by the Zionists to normalise the vocabulary of occupation (as with the term ‘security fence’ as distinct from ‘separation wall’). I would have thought for this reason it would be subversive of Zionism to use the alternative - Palestinians within in Israel - referring to those Palestinians not in the West Bank or Gaza. The use of this term may well be an oversight rather than a conscious choice and probably indicates that we can all at times be less than thorough in our formulations.

In this particular paper Gilad Atzmon is also accused of emphasising the Jewishness of the Zionist state of Israel and asserting that ‘Zionism is a continuation of Jewishness’ in order to explain its barbarism. Again no direct quotes are provided to judge this by. Against this view the authors argue that Zionism is in many ways a break with Jewishness. If this really is a serious debate it seems to me both points are correct. Zionism is a continuation of Jewishness as Hess, Herzl and others (such as Rabbi Kook, those in the National Religious Movement in Israel and Rabbinical scholars such as Isadore Epstein) still emphasised strenuously fifty years later. Herzl, for example, in the 19th century argued;

“..the distinctive nationality of the Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed…Whole branches of Judaism may wither and fall, but the trunk will remain.” (Herzl. ‘The Jewish State’ § 16).

Whilst Rabbi Epstein in the 1950's/1960's asserted;

“The Jews were the Messianic people; on them was laid the task to work for the realisation of the principles of social justice, human cooperation, and permanent peace in an organised and united humanity; and only the return to their ancestral homeland would give the Jews the possibility of discharging properly their divinely assigned task and help bring about in the social sphere what Hess describes as ‘the historical Sabbath of mankind.” (Judaism. By Isidore Epstein page 306. Emphasis added).

An egotistical religious or cultural fantasy of being 'chosen' and the leaders toward a 'united humanity' who according to Isaiah (49 v 23. & 54 v 3, etc.) will 'bow down' and 'lick the dust off your feet' may be harmlessly out of step with the realties of the world, but when it is linked to the colonising task of Zionism, (i.e., as in the highlighted phrase above) it is something else. It is something which has already proved a deadly cocktail for the Palestinians and many anti-Zionist Jews. Clearly Herzl, one of the founders of aggressive Zionism, and the Jewish Zionists who followed him, consider Zionism as the ‘trunk’ and the continuation of Jewishness in the modern Israeli era is defined in terms of the ‘nation' and the state of Israel.[6] However, other Jews contest this view.

“The Zionist use of history is at the same time a rejection of the rabbinical interpretations, which remain the focal point of Torah anti-Zionism.” (Rabkin, ‘A Threat from Within’, page 69).

From this particular Judaic anti-Zionist perspective, Zionism is also a break with important aspects of Rabbinical and orthodox Judaism, for Jewishness there is defined in terms of the Torah and the synagogue. This is why some orthodox Jews still oppose Zionism - even though not all oppose the State of Israel. So both views are correct in some senses and it is the senses which are continually being contested. Actually to my mind the similarities and real continuity of both Zionism and Rabbinical Judaism with historical Jewishness is the continued wish to separate Jewishness from the rest of humanity and base it on some compound notion of exclusive Jewish ethnicity. The differences between them are whether that ‘separateness’ is united around Judaism, nationalism or around some other view. And yet it is this separatism, exclusivity and implied (or sometimes asserted) superiority, whether religious or secular dominated which can become a problem and one which has already been identified by numerous Jewish commentators. For example;

“Wherever the remnants of the Jewish community landed up, they clung to four things for comfort: their concept of the One God, their ethical beliefs, their traditional family values, and the Hebrew language. Their strange and exclusive behaviour did not go down well with the indigenous peoples among whom they settled.” (Morris Beckman, ‘The Jewish Brigade’ Pub Spellmount. Page 1).

This statement about clinging to the Hebrew language is not strictly true, for the Jews who ‘landed up’ in Alexandria spoke Greek and had to have their Torah/Tanach translated into Greek in order to read it. Also those in Germanic Europe created Yiddish and in Arabic Spain they often spoke and wrote in Arabic. Others also spoke Aramaic for periods of time. There is, however, a general truth buried within the first sentence of that extract, but there is also another in the second. Jews were not the only people to believe in one god, nor where they the only ones with ethical beliefs and traditional family values. Most of the known world after the establishment Christianity and Islam adhered to these three aspects and Hinduism to two of them. So it was not these which account for the ‘strange and exclusive behaviour’ which ‘did not go down well with the indigenous peoples amongst whom they settled'. The above author recognises a degree of responsibility but fails to identify the real causes on both sides. In fact, the Judaic concept of one god elevated Jewish believers in their own minds, to an exclusive ‘chosen’ category. The triumph of the sectarian elitist paradigm against the strong integrationist one within early Judaism (traceable in the Torah/Tanach/Old Testament), meant their acquired ‘family values’ were eventually directed to retaining this exclusivity by (among other things) not intermarrying with non-Jews. Perhaps it was these ‘things’ which were among those which alienated them from the communities they settled in and helped to start the whole process off. Let us consider this a little further, for it deals with what Hannah Arendt described as 'Jewish chauvinism' and 'perverted nationalism, arising from a 'fantastic delusion of chosenness.[7] And it gives lie to the common accusation that Judeophobia is like a virus within the blood stream of all non-Jews or carried down generations by some genetically inherited intellectual or emotional deformation in gentile DNA.

“Looking at the matter a little bit more closely, we see the existential choice to live as a ’people apart’ to be a launching point for a dialectic whose further development was shaped, first, by the kinds of reaction others would have to this, and then by the counter-reactions of Israelites…in order to adapt to others.” (Kovel J. ’Overcoming Zionism’ Pub. Pluto. Page 19).

In other words if you posit your group as a ‘people apart’ and the ‘chosen’ of the one god and live according to this maxim, then initially your group will be the object of curiosity, amusement, admiration or even resentment among many people in adjacent communities. This occurred to Jewish communities before and during the early Roman period. Yet as far as can be gathered;

“In this period of antiquity - and apart from Alexandria - there are scarcely any examples of popular outbursts against the Jews. The masses were not concerned with them and harboured no special prejudice against them.” (Poliakov L. ‘The History of anti-Semitism’ Volume 1 page 8).

If some of your group use their economic or social positions to exploit the communities they are among, these will be further resented and even hated (but not necessarily phobicly) by a few or many depending upon the degree and extent of exploitation. If both groups then unfairly (i.e., phobicly) project onto all other people, the hatred of this few (or many), the out-group (the pagans in this case) will further distrust your own group and your own group will distance themselves even further from the adjacent pagan communities. In such a case there would be set in motion a self-fulfilling and self-fuelling phobic alternation. If in addition, a powerful rival monotheism (Christianity) arises whose leaders also phobicly demonise your group then the oscillation can become a self-fulfilling circle or even spiral of dislike and prejudice.

"In the controversy that went on between Jews and Christians it is reasonable to suppose that the Jew attacked features of the Christian faith that they disliked at the same time as they defended their own position. In fact as may be shown, the arguments concerning Christology that are developed in the anti-Jewish treatises have their counterpart in the criticisms of Christology that are found in the rabbinical writings.” (Simon. M. ‘Verses Israel’ Pub. Oxford Uni. Page 143).

This spiralling occurred after Constantine during the later Roman period and continued (with varying tempo’s) in the west throughout the Middle Ages, culminating in the Nazi period. If after that history (and even because of it) your group maintains its separateness, exclusivity and ethnic identity and (this is where the separatist desire becomes really problematic) creates a powerful armed force, seizes land and ethnically cleanses an indigenous people, then certain things may follow. Despite the sympathy engendered by the Shoah/Holocaust, your group may just have helped re-start the self-fulfilling circle of dislike and even hatred with the danger of a further self-fulfilling and escalating spiral of dislike and even hatred, which is then eagerly latched onto by the racists. Such firm adherence to denominational religion and/or exclusive ethnicity (any religion and any ethnicity) offers no real way of breaking out of this pattern once it has become established.

“From this perspective, to grant a particular group ‘Chosen Status’ is nonsense - nonsense that may be colourful and forgivable when the group in question is marginal. But becomes pernicious once that group links itself with the main body of power and gains control of a state.” (Kovel J. ’Overcoming Zionism’ Pub. Pluto. Page 6).

It is clear that once again (as in the period of the Maccabees) there is a fiercely contested struggle among numerous people of Jewish ethnicity over the definition of what constitutes authentic Jewishness. A dispute over whether to be Jewish is to be an exclusive ‘people of the Torah and the Talmud’ (the Traditional/Rabbinical view) or an exclusive ‘people of the Passport and Flag' (the Israeli/Zionist view) or some third or even fourth, as yet undisclosed, way. Tony Greenstein and Roland Rance at this point in their polemic are clearly arguing that Israel and Zionism is not an authentic definition of Jewishness but in this debate they do not appear to define what they think is authentic and do not clearly indicate whether their definition would also be based upon an exclusive and separatist ideology.[8]

Although it is popular in ’liberal’ circles to leave religion out of politics it is actually unavoidable to come to the conclusion that religious ideas, motivations and rationalisations have played and do play a real ideological role in many forms of racism and brutal colonial enterprises. (See for example; M. Prior ‘The Bible and Colonialism’ and N. Masalha 'The Bible and Zionism.’). As another example of the connection between religion and socio-economic culture, take the previously mentioned phenomenon of Judeophobia. There may be other motivations for Judeophobia, but in the rise of Christianity, (at least from the 2nd century), Christians, as noted earlier, played a serious and fundamental role. They not only cranked up this phobia but for a time gave its anti-Jewish and ‘black’/'native' racist agenda a ‘divine’ authorisation. It is similar with Judaism. The Torah/Tanach/Old Testament has played and still plays a serious and fundamental role as an ideological support for Zionism, both Christian and Judaic, and contains within its core ideas which are racist. For example, a well-respected leading interpreter of Jewish scriptures felt confident enough to state;

“The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion, neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition. Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the Kushites who live in the south, and those in our country who are like these. I consider these as irrational beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a mental facility above that of the monkey….those who possess religion, belief, and thought, but happen to hold false doctrines…..these are worse than the first class, and under certain circumstances it may become necessary to slay them, and to extirpate their doctrines, in order that others should not be misled.” (Moses Maimonides. ‘Guide for the Perplexed’. Dover. Chapter 41; Page 384).

Ideas of superiority (see also Philo Praem 114) and other people being less than human, but above monkeys and that it may be necessary to slay some of them are clearly Judaic situated ideas promoting racism and potential authorisation for genocide. It is not clear how this can be easily separated from aspects of Jewishness, since Jewishness derives some things - if not most things - from Judaism. This is not the only similar pronouncement in the ‘Guide for the Perplexed’. Maimonides is something of a revered guru within Judaism and was writing this in the 12th century of the Common Era, a thousand or more years after the narratives of the Torah/Tanach/Old Testament. Yet in this and other respects his opinon faithfully reproduces the same sectarian/racist ideas (i.e., deeply gentile-phobic) within the original Torah/Tanach scriptures such as Deuteronomy 28;1; Joshua 6;21; Isaiah 45;14, and numerous other places. A further thousand years on and these scriptures are still at the heart of Judaism and are therefore an important part of the religious aspect of Jewishness. Neither they (the scriptures) nor Maimonides have been rejected or to my knowledge even seriously challenged or condemned by Jewish followers of Judaism or Zionism. So I suggest it is not phobic to denounce these from within and without or explore and expose the fact that these same sentiments (a significant part of the ‘connective tissue’) have been used in the 20th and 21st centuries within Israel to support Zionist activities and justify barbarity. It is simply not Judeophobic to draw attention to the origin of racist ideas like these and it is certainly not Judeophobic to oppose the racist acts of Jewish Zionists in Israel, the Occupied Territories and Gaza.

Whilst it is true that Judaism (as an abstract noun) is not responsible for brutality and discrimination, many human beings who believe in or follow this religion are responsible for it. And it was this mythical Judaic history which was used to determine that it would be Palestinian land which was occupied and not somewhere else. Israeli/Zionist colonialism is also unique among the other brutal colonialisms of the past in that the benefits are ideologically and legally restricted to one ethnic group. I fail to see how Zionism can be understood without recognising this part of the ideological link with Judaism. To suggest this and to explore any connective tissue with this aspect of Jewishness is not a phobic reaction any more than the exploration of Christianity and its ideological use in 17th and 18th century racist colonisation of North and South America and elsewhere. Or, for that matter, the use of Islamic belief in its earlier 7th to 9th century non-racist (but religiously superior) expansion from India to Spain. All the older religions, including Judaism, are rooted in a past of, and have scriptural recommendations and rationalisations for, killing, enslaving and resource acquisition in the name of God. In more recent times Catholicism informed, as in the original conquest of South America, (and confessionally forgave) the brutality of Pinochet’s followers and others. The Dutch Reform church provided a divinely felt inspiration for the savage apartheid regime in South Africa and born again Christian Zionism is not very far from the front of the neo-con minds of George W Bush and his advisors as they bomb and blast their way through Iraq and Afghanistan.[9]

The two authors continue to take Gilad Atzmon to task for arguing that it is the concept of ‘a Jewish or Jews only state which is the principle antagonist’. In contrast they argue it is ‘the Zionist movement and the racist Israeli state that it created’ which is. (§ 8). In support of that view they go on to argue that a state doesn’t pray to God, nor wear a skull cap, etc. Whilst this is true I can’t imagine that Gilad Atzmon is unaware that abstract collective nouns are just that and cannot do anything other than visually, orally and conceptually represent what they are meant to. So it is unlikely he or anyone else would be meaning this. However, the human Zionists who staff the Israeli state organisations of government, administration, law, education and military, can and many do pray to God, wear skull caps, etc., and do claim that the Israeli state is a ‘Jews only’ state. In this they follow the many originators of the 19th century idea - ‘The Lovers of Zion’, Pinsker, Lilienblum and later Herzl and his close followers who developed it further. Indeed, the Israeli Declaration of Independence makes this link absolutely clear.

“Eretz-Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spirituality, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave the world the book of books.” (Extract from Israel’s ‘Declaration of Independence').

In his book ‘Overcoming Zionism‘, Joel Kovel traces the origins of Zionism and the worldwide support it gets from Jews to the ’tribal’ preferences of this ethno/religious group which sees itself as a ‘people apart’. It is this tribal partiality which became dominant in the formation of Judaism as is revealed in the Torah/Tanach. So just what is behind this part of the objection by Roland Rance and Tony Greenstein that it is not some important aspects of the Jewishness of the state of Israel which is the problem but the Zionist nature of it? Is it possible to imagine that there could be a ‘Jewish only’ state that was not ethnicist/racist or Zionist or that Israel could still be a Jewish state if its citizens just abandoned Zionism? Well just about perhaps - in one’s imagination. But in reality?

It is not clear what lies behind this part of the disagreement, except that again there is a wish to separate Jewishness from modern Zionism in order to protect some undisclosed innocent or unsullied version of it. Of course there are some religious Jews who are not Zionists and would not fight the Palestinians, nor physically clear them off the land. But neither would they declare a Jewish state, as their 19th century predecessors might have hinted at, for if after the Rothschild or Biluim type infiltration processes, they had, they knew that this would be resisted by native Palestinians. For such a thing to happen on that scale, according to their scriptures (Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel) the Messiah would have to return first and he would then recreate the mythical Jewish state of Israel and allot everyone else their place in this racist/ethnicist Judaic grand scheme of things. And as already noted, it is precisely this religio-mythical state of Israel kept alive by Judaism (and Christianity) which was an essential part of the inspiration for the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

It seems to me that Jewish Zionism (as distinct from Christian Zionism) is a synthesis of four elements. First the desire to remain a separate cultural/religious collective identity variously described as a ‘chosen‘ ‘people‘ or ‘nation‘ in the Torah/Tanach. Second, the desire to escape non-Jewish prejudice and completely control their own affairs. Third, to fulfil, the mythical land-based covenant of their God YHWH. Fourth, to become militarily strong enough to seize land and resources, secure them and resist any further attempts at annihilation. The first three are clearly derived from Judaic Jewishness whether this is ultimately dominated by secular or religious concerns and the fourth although not a specifically Jewish phenomenon stems from the prior three. Zionism, created and developed by Jewish intellectuals secular and religious, has embraced or appropriated much of the essence of Jewishness and it appears that a great number of Jews have not only accepted that, but enthusiastically endorsed it.

The authors also assert that Gilad Atzmon agues that Jewish anti-Zionists have become the gatekeepers of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement and that his logic is “impeccable for its Zionist credentials“. Again, there are no direct relevant quotes provided from which to independently draw this conclusion. Whether or not this is a Judeophobic assertion I shall examine later. Having considered certain aspects of the anti-Gilad Atzmon paper ‘Anti-Semitism is not the answer’, I shall consider another.

b) Greg Dropkin

Greg Dropkin produced a report (published in 2005) after a talk by Gilad Atzmon at a Manchester Jazz Festival. In it Gilad Atzmon is accused (§ 3) of distributing an article by Paul Eisen, entitled ‘The Holocaust Wars‘. This article in turn is described as a long defence of a “neo-Nazi, Hitler lover and Holocaust denier“, called Ernst Zundel. Greg Dropkin says that Gilad Atzmon described the article ‘Holocaust Wars’ as a ’very important text’ and Israel Shamir as ’a unique and advanced thinker’ (§ 6). Gilad Atzmon's reasons for making these remarks are not quoted or even considered. Yet this is something quite important I would have thought. References are then made which bring in other names from the American right-wing neo-cons and Ku Klux Klan to the British National Party, John Tyndal, Martin Webster, and Nick Griffin. Greg Dropkin then suggests that Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir would like Palestinians and their supporters to form an alliance with such right-wing characters in the USA and UK. Even if this is true of Eisen and Shamir, is this a likely event? Are people in the Palestinian solidarity movement so naïve and gullible that they would countenance such an alliance with right-wing Fascists? Is this not also an extremely patronising and implicitly arrogant position to adopt? Do these authors really (phobicly) think we non-Jews and other critical anti-Zionists need their protection from catching Judeophobia and becoming fascists, as if it was some kind of contagious disease to which we are all prone? And has it actually been made clear in this report that Gilad Atzmon wants and advocates such a link and alliance? Not at all! So we have to ask, “is this an over simplistic alarmist form of guilt by association and assertion which is motivated by (among other reasons) an extremely low opinion of pro-Palestinian solidarity activists?”

It appears from this anti-Atzmon article that the explicit motive behind this alleged link between Gilad Atzmon and right wing neo-Fascists via the conduit of Shamir and Eisen is fear of infiltration by neo Fascists into the Palestine solidarity movement. Either that or intellectual contamination by reading certain texts which will then put others off supporting Palestine solidarity. It seems the tenuous logic intimated in this paper is that those who listen to and agree with everything Gilad Atzmon writes, will then go on to listen and agree with everything Shamir and Eisen have said simply because he has said one has produced a ’important text’ and the other is a ’unique and advanced thinker‘. Presumably (since the others are mentioned) the fear is that those who then read Shamir and Eisen will then move further right and listen and agree with the BNP, Ku Klux Klan and others. Then they will infiltrate Palestinian solidarity. Is this not a bit paranoid? The only way that could happen is if some people already wanted to travel along that path or did not read all the material carefully and spot the problems, inconsistencies and contradictions. From the flimsy fragments of evidence mustered in this short paper this is really guilt by a tenuously extended association. If I were to say that 'Mein Kampf’ was a very important text - which I do think it is - does that mean I endorse it? Or that others will rush to read it and subsequently don jackboots? If I describe Lenin and Trotsky as unique and advanced thinkers, does that mean I agree with them? Alternatively would my profound disagreement mean they were wrong in everything they said? As noted earlier, the real world rarely works in such a ‘black and white’, ‘right or wrong‘, ‘you’re either with us or against us‘, ways. Only in fundamentalist religion and similar dogmatic totalitarian sectarian secular ideologies is the world incorrectly presented as eternally adhering to this kind of dualistic pattern.

To my mind, much more than these tenuous and fragmentary asserted links are needed to substantiate such a serious character assassination. If really strong evidence of links exists, I wonder why they have not been used. If direct quotes are available to give unconditional weight or provide unambiguous evidence to the charges of Judeophobia, Holocaust Denial and dangerous links to fascism, why have they not been produced? Instead we have numerous assertions without any serious attempt to define the terms being used. And the interesting question arises - why have definitions not been provided against which to evaluate the alleged statements?[10] Nor have there been any acknowledgements in these anti-Gilad Atzmon polemics (at least in those I have read so far) that any group or community's ’value-system’ is open to legitimate criticism, if it leads directly or indirectly to the oppression, exploitation and ethnic cleansing of others. I do wonder why this obvious consideration is not accepted and explicitly stated in these polemics. For it is absolutely certain that the ’value-system’ of Zionism is doing exactly that to the Palestinians and it is also clear they are claiming to do it in the name of representing a form of Jewish ethnicity. To me this certainly invites an in depth examination and criticism of this groups entire historic and contemporary value system.

In the second half of this paper I will consider two of the named 'offending' articles, explore further the issues which have emerged - together with background material I consider relevant - before drawing final conclusions and suggesting possible motives..

[1] The concept of dialectic seems to have been abandoned in many of these discourses, and things are presented in absolutist terms so that complex issues are viewed dualistically as ‘black and white’. Rival views within solidarity work are not seen by some participants as different and developmental or even subjected to ongoing evaluation, but are summarily dismissed not only as ‘wrong’ but as dangerous. What frequently operates here is a mentality which is self-considered to be superior and embodies an absolute (dogmatic) truth. It also displays not an ounce of compassion, humility or doubt. Yet doubt is the origin and only route to any non-religious form of approximate certainty about anything.

[2] My decision to use Judeophobia instead of anti-Semitism is based on four reasons. First the inclusion of the term phobia more accurately describes what is the anti-humanist element in this phenomenon. Second if we accept the colonialist/imperialist invented term of Semite (from the 19th century Orientalist philological discourse on people and languages) then it applies to other Arabs as well as Jews and therefore can be confusing. Thirdly, the term Semitic is meant to convey an ethnicity which correlates closely to biological/genetic/geographical factors, and many Jewish people are not from such lineages. Finally, there is every reason to agree with Edward Said that the term was created in and by a culture of European superiority. And that - for at least one of its exponents - (Renan) “Semitic is a phenomenon of arrested development in comparison with the mature languages and cultures of the Indo-European group…” (See ‘Orientalism‘ page 145). In other words, not only is it inaccurate but the word itself is the bearer of the stamp of racist/superior assumptions.

[3] Religious or semi-religious in the sense of participants in these movements believing they were helping implement the unfolding purpose of some ‘higher power’ whether that higher power was conceived as a ‘god‘, ‘destiny‘, ‘progress‘, ‘the march of freedom’ or ’historical necessity‘.

[4] For example, a Rebbe, Teitelbaum, himself a holocaust survivor asserted; “Because of our sinfulness we have suffered greatly…..And so it is no wonder that the Lord has lashed out in anger…there were also righteous people who perished because of the iniquity of the sinners…” (Rabkin,. page 173.) Here we have from a firmly Jewish religious perspective a case of completely blaming Jews for everything bad that happens to them (as consistent with the Torah/Tanach) in contrast to the Jewish Zionist view of never blaming Jews for anything bad that happens to them. This is an informative example of the limitations of dualistic frameworks.

[5] Such a remark, if not exact, is certainly no looser a formulation than that made by Roland Rance and Tony Greenstein in their polemic against him. In that article they say that fascism is ‘formed in specific circumstances such as the defeat and atomisation of the working class’ (§ 4). For this formulation collapses the process of fascist formation and transformation into a misleading parody of its actual process and final manifestation. In fact it is the system of capitalism which provides the initial atomisation of workers and other citizens out of which collectivist totalitarianisms such as Fascism build their clientele. (See E. Fromm ‘Fear of Freedom’. Chapter 4). Even further atomisation and demoralisation was also the ‘active’ work of various ‘left’ socialist sectarian leaderships that further divided the working class forces both in Germany and Italy and by this means ably assisted the rise and conquest of Fascism in both these countries.

[6] This direct link between Jewish religion and Zionism was very firmly made during the latter stages of the Second World War. Jewish Nationalist Soldiers (particularly those in 178 and 468 Companies) would rebuild synagogues, celebrate Passover even during heavy bombardment and engage in the activities of the Reshet (the net) movement, directing Jewish people and armaments to Palestine. They made frequent requests to march under their own flag yet remained fervently devout.

[7] In chapter 1 of her book ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ she comments on the denial of any Jewish responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism.

[8] There was an early attempt to blend Jewish socialism and Zionism in Palestine/Israel, by tendencies such as the Poale Zion, Mapal, Mapam and the Kibbutz movement. Many of these in order to reconcile acts of colonial dispossession with socialist ideas interpreted or rationalised Palestinian Arab resistance to occupation as stemming from a mixture of deeply held Judeophobia or anti-Semitism and feudal obstinacy. In retrospect, many of these self-professed socialists were in a form of denial over what was really going on and were in fact ‘blaming the victims'. Not surprisingly this form of ‘socialism’ did not prosper.

[9] The ‘common sense’ idea that there is a dualistic opposition between religion and politics; between faith in god and economic opportunism, is a myth and an illusion. Religions have always been a composite mix of faith, mysticism, politics, economics and social mores. What is predominantly emphasised or stressed at any one time or period are those aspects of religious ideology which are (or were) thought to serve the religious communities needs of that period or the needs of the individual believers. The feudal ruler as ‘God’s representative on earth’ illustrates the point quite well, and the emergence of what Rousseau termed ’civic religion’ in nation states - in which sufficient common elements were drawn out from religious denominations in order to maintain a unity - continued this trend.

[10] The lack of definitions and the repeated (flit-gun type) use of the term anti-Semitism is reminiscent to me of a type of ’jargon of authenticity’ as defined by Theodor Adorno. He notes; ”Whoever is versed in the jargon does not have to say what he thinks, does not have to think it properly. The jargon takes over this task and devaluates thought.” In commenting upon the exclusion of those who do not pronounce the same credo, and on someone who rather than listen walked out of (i.e., boycotted) a debate, Adorno noted. “He too had been warned against and dispensed from having dealings with people who do not toe the line; as though critical thought had no objective foundation but was a subjective deviation.”

The author is an activist and trade unionist in campaigns on Biafra, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, South Africa and Palestine. He is the author of the book 'Revolutionary Humanism and the Anti-Capitalist Struggle' and is currently researching and writing a book on 'Religion and its role in the rise of Fundamentalisms'