Aaronovitch isn’t what one might consider well known outside of the UK, his argument is actually quite provincial if one can wade through his less than captivating prose, but in his own eyes, he’s quite something. That's him in the photo, giving one of those Come Hither looks he must think the ladies find irresitible. To the unacquainted, this is a man who used to spread a tribalistic ideology and colonial war mongering that would sit well in any imperial war room, and he would wage his battle cries in particular through a moderately progressive UK paper, The Guardian and a more conservative one, the Times. Can we consider it a promotion to now find his lame writing in the really exclusive and excitingly hip London Shtetl weekly, namely the Jewish Chronicle?  

It took Aaronovitch three weeks to assimilate his humiliating defeat in Oxford when he was one of the speakers on a panel that was about a topic that is considered to be “hot”, one about Antisemitism in the UK, and after that pause of reflection, it’s pretty disappointing to see the guy come up with such a weak piece. It is an attempt to soul search, but judging by the result, he maybe should have taken a few more weeks to get a few more ideas to rub together. Watching someone lick their wounds is never interesting, and self-pity at least should have a bit of self-irony to it. But the man takes himself far too seriously, but what would we come to expect from someone who shouts at people, “How DARE you applaud! YOU, Sir, are an antisemite!”

He bares what we can for expediency’s sake call a soul that he has been searching and in the subtitle tells his thousand or so readers: “I imagined this anti-Jewish Jew’s own words would show him up, but they were applauded”. He realises that in a Jewish paper, he has to appeal to the important matters first, namely, “who’s a Jew”. After getting that crucial matter out of the way, one is left with the realisation that if someone operates from some kind of judgment that is so utterly wrong about the need to drive the UK into an invasion against Iraq, making a value error about his own success in front of a paying public at a literary event in Oxford should be no surprise. Humiliation and failure always hurts, but what’s a bit of humiliation compared to being responsible for endorsing the upheaval of a foreign country that has cost the lives of one and a half million civilians?

He doesn’t seem to have that much of a sense of perspective either, if he is missing what matters to people. Let’s see what he wrote: “In essence,” says Aaronovitch, Atzmon’s argument is that Jews are responsible for their own historic misfortunes due to their tribalism and aggression.” Well, the man writing in the Jewish Chronicle about his own poorly managed public speaking event did bring that down on himself, and if he’s blamed for convincing others to get behind the Shock and Awe aggression stuff, this fatal responsibility should weigh on him too. It seems he has captured the essence of some points Gilad Atzmon was making about Jewish identity and its historical responsibilities. In other words, Atzmon suggests that Jews and those who write for Jewish papers, like our subject in question, might think twice and start to take responsibility for their own fate and glimpse into the mirror occasionally. Aaronovitch is very unhappy with such a suggestion. He prefers obviously to keep advocating wars forever, while being an Israeli Hasbara Committee author. With this kind of track record, how could he be stunned, upset or surprised that people are going to be intelligent or attentive enough to just connect the dots and hiss the man out of the premises?   

But then the self-confessional begins as Aaronovitch admits why he took the fatal challenge in accepting to confront Atzmon in public. “I was too proud and arrogant not to believe I could show a roomful of British people that a line was in danger of being crossed.” Apparently as the audio link proves (click on the podcast), Aaronovitch was indeed silly not to realise that Atzmon possesses far more consistency and clarity, as well as having the not small benefit of being humanistic and a capable writer, all of this leading to popularity.  Considering the extensive research he made of Atzmon’s writing – if we want to imagine for a moment he did it himself and not accept the suggestion made on Aaronovitch Watch that it was compiled for him from the other “look like a leftist and talk like a neocon” at Harry’s Place – Aaronovitch should have grasped that he just did not stand a chance. To win the applause of the public, one has to have something to offer.   

A little further on in this vapid article Aaronovitch provides us with an explanation of his total failure. “A co-speaker, arranged at the last minute, was the journalist Nick Cohen. This was worrying, not because Nick is anything other than excellent,” Aaronovitch states, and a round of drinks or dinner shall be due for this hyperbolic comment, “but because British audiences hate ganging-up. If it was two beauteous elves against one hideous orc, they would side with the orc.” Man, if this is how he understood the dynamics, he should have left the research aside and just insisted that Azog be accompanied by the Phantom of the Opera, that way, it would be a fair discussion!
 
(at the left, how Aaronovitch fancies himself and Cohen). For those out of nursery school or who don’t accept the freaky math of our correspondent, the explanation was far simpler. Our hoity-toity Jewish Chronicler had nothing to say except to just read Atzmon extracts that were – shock – very convincing. Might just be something that explains Atzmon’s huge readership.  Listening to the recordings for those who missed out on the other beauteous elf, Cohen had nothing to say in general except to pour poison on Islam. In an academic platform, the reality is that the two stood zero chance against Atzmon. 

Interestingly enough, when addressing the Jewish reader, Aaronovitch employs some racial and physical categories to get his point across.  Equating Atzmon with an orc was just one example. But here is far more revealing one: “Towards the back was the unmistakable Aryan presence of Michele Renouf, of the Number One Ladies.” Aaronovitch, who campaigns against antisemitism should know that referring to people by employing inflammatory racial references is nothing less than crude racism. However, as Atzmon said during the event, racism is a Jewish territory in the UK. Jewish Chronicle authors such as Aaronovitch get away with it, don’t they? 

“From there it was downhill,” admits Aaronovitch as he watched the room drinking from Atzmon’s well. Aaronovitch and Cohen, the leading advocates of the Iraq war in the British press were confronted with Atzmon’s “diatribe about warmongers” when he was pointing at them again and again. “If you want to know what is the root cause of Antisemitism, here they are, sitting in front of you (Cohen/Aaronovitch)” was basically the recognition that the public was there making. If Jews want to save themselves, they better disassociate themselves from wars that are committed in their names or advocated by their Jewish Chronicle writers. It’s telling that Cohen and Aaronovitch can’t interpret this as one of those “I hope you’re happy now” moments. People actually DO resent their nation being dragged into wars while the journalists are sitting pretty when not actually shouting at them to stop showing their approval of someone else. 

(at the left, how Aaronovitch thinks the public is required to view Atzmon) Towards the end of his confession, Aaronovitch admits being staggered by a Jew who supports Atzmon. Aaronovitch decided to act on this shocking scene.  “Later on that evening, I emailed this man and asked how it could be that he was so interested in Jewish history and the early experience of British Jews, and could end up co-applauding the Judeophobia of an idiotic musician, alongside Renouf.” Seemingly, in spite of Jewish emancipation and 200 years of Jewish assimilation, Aaronovitch expects Jews to act as one people. Pretty astonishing to hear such an idea from a man who advocated the invasion of Iraq in the name of the ‘Western notion of liberty’. When it comes to Jews, Aaronovitch expects total intellectual and spiritual submission. 

Writing for a Jewish paper, Aaronovitch must end with the tragic victim exposition talking about an iconic ‘Jewish student’ who came to him afterwards ‘in tears.’ 

Aaronovitch fails to tell us why exactly the Jewish student was crying. Was it because the war in Iraq didn’t work as had been promised by Aaronovitch? Or maybe was it because of the Madoff swindling affair that inflicted so much loss on so many Jewish charities. Perhaps it was just because the tag team bullying tactics of Cohen /Aaronovitch proved to be a complete disaster and the Jewish student doesn’t have any other devices left at his disposal. It would be great if Aaronovitch would be kind enough to tell us and to remove any form of speculation. When a Jew cries, we all are entitled to know why.

No one expected a calm discussion during the debate entitled “Anti-Semitism – Alive and Well in Europe?”, which was organised by the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival. Along with Aaronovitch, the panel included Gilad Atzmon and the Observer columnist Nick Cohen. 

It’s not clear why Cohen was invited to join at the very last minute when his views, to the naked eye at least, are akin to those of Aaronovitch’s. It would be fair to describe both men as supporters of Zionism who believe that anti-Semitism is on the rise and that much of it is “unfairly” blamed on Israel’s actions. 

Atzmon’s views, on the other hand, are well-known to those who follow websites on Palestinian activism. He has very strong views on “Jewishness” and “Jewish identity”, and makes a clear distinction between Jews as a people and those who commit crimes in the name of “Jewish ideology”. 

Both Aaronovitch and Cohen launched an attack on Atzmon. Aaronovich took the podium for 18 minutes (when we were told each speaker would only have 10, and indeed Atzmon had less than 10) during which he gave a  theatrical performance, reading out paragraph after paragraph of Atzmon’s articles to prove the point that the man was “fascist”. I doubt anyone in the audience managed to grasp what he was saying, but when you spit out the word “Jews” then at least it gives the impression what you’re saying about them is bad! 

Cohen, other the hand, kept wondering, over and over again, why “upper-class”, “educated”, “white” people would waste such a beautiful spring day debating anti-Semitism with a “nutter” (well, at least I could say I learned something about racial and class prejudice that day!) 

One can imagine how shocked and angry Atzmon was by the time it was his turn to take the podium. And this is why the event became a missed opportunity. He  tried to steer the debate back to its theme, but at times his emotions failed him. In between having to answer to the attacks levelled against him by Aaronovitch and Cohen, and trying to remind people of what they came to discuss, much of his ideas were lost on those who’ve never followed his writings. 

Once the floor was opened for questions, a member of the audience said the discussion, as a whole, "was a profound disappointment”. 

So why did the Oxford Literary Festival invite Atzmon? After all, he's the "proud self-hating Jew" who wonders how America has allowed its foreign policies to be shaped by "ruthless Zionists". He's the one who insists that the burning of synagogues is illegitimate, yet he believes the motivations behind such actions are political rather than religious or racial.

Cohen certainly conceded that whenever Israel launches a fresh attack on Gaza or Lebanon, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries are attacked in the UK. Yet somehow he refuses to accept the correlation between Zionist policies and anti-Semitism. He wants us to believe that anti-Semitism is fuelled by pure hatred for the Jews. After all, Chinese property wasn’t attacked in the aftermath of the Tibetan clashes last year. Sudanese property wasn’t attacked when Darfur was in the media. 

Well, Mr. Cohen, maybe it’s because China and Sudan are being condemned in the international community, especially in Britain, while Israel to this day is being hailed as the West’s indispensable partner. Maybe it’s because what Israel has committed in Gaza during “Operation Cast Lead” earlier this year has created more devastation than what happened in Darfur (and this is according to the head of the International Red Cross). Maybe it's because it is acceptable for British Jews to join the IDF, and actively take part in Israel's wars, while British Muslims or Chinese or whatever would never dare join a non-British army. 

The response from some members of the “upper-middle class, educated, white” audience proved that these questions are not an endorsement of conspiracy theories. They are legitimate questions. 

One man raised the question of the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington. It was their pressure that led Obama to back down on his decision to appoint Mr. Freeman as an advisor, a man well-known for his criticism of Israel. “In those circumstances,” the man asked, “is a rise in anti-Semitism surprising when democracy is affected by that type of lobbying activity that prevents Obama from being able to appoint Ambassador Freeman?” 

We know what Atzmon would’ve said, but neither Aaronovitch nor Cohen answered that question. 

None of this justifies attacking synagogues or anti-Jewish graffiti. If anything, Atzmon – whom Aaronovitch and Cohen blasted as a “fascist” and a “nutter – was saying ordinary Jewish people “must be saved of the crimes imposed on them.” The crimes taking place in Palestine aren’t being committed just in the name of Israel, but in the name of the Jewish people. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s a fact. If you’re in doubt, go and read the Israeli government’s statements during Operation Cast Lead. 

Is it so outrageous to ask Jews in the UK to disassociate themselves from what is happening in Israel, without being labelled as an “anti-Semite”? Apparently it is. When people applauded Atzmon for making that point in the discussion, they were attacked by Aaronovitch who shouted "Shame on you! How dare you!", even addressing one member in the audience by saying “You Sir, are an anti-Semite.”

In the aftermath of the July 7th attacks, Muslims were attacked everywhere. It became so dangerous that a fatwa had to be issued allowing women to take off the headscarf if they felt their lives were in danger. Yet at the same time, the Muslim community was under enormous pressure to disassociate itself from the terrorists who blew up those trains and busses. While they were being attacked themselves, they were still expected to make a clear statement that what happened on July 7th does not represent them and is not being committed in their name. 

Try and say that to the Jewish community today without being called an “anti-Semite”. 

Now I don’t want to ponder too much semantics but it is very ironic that anti-Semitism has been coined as a term exclusively for Jews when most of them do not belong to the Semitic race. Arabs, on the other hand, are Semitic. So if for one moment I, as an Arab, could reclaim that definition, I leave you with one point to think about. 

In the beginning of his speech, Aaronovitch wanted to illustrate just how bad Atzmon was. He quoted the Guardian’s Jon Lewis who described Atzmon’s writings as “extremely popular in the Arab world.” Aaronovitch then fixed his audience with a gaze and asked them to keep that sentence at the very front of their minds. 

On second thought, I think I did learn something about “anti-Semitism” that day. 

Dima Omar is a Palestinian journalist and filmmaker. She is based in London. 

"Are you a Londoner now?" , I asked Cricklewood resident Gilad Atzmon.

He paused for thought. And for a very brief moment, I imagined I had achieved the impossible and caught him short of an answer.

But landed with my left-field question he seemed, for a few seconds, genuinely lost for words. The first phrases of his response were short. Ironic yet deadpan.

"Obviously, I'm a foreigner. Big time. I can hardly speak English."
Then gradually, the ideas started to take shape and flow and grow. His natural presence, his emotional force and intensity started to rebuild. Phrases were getting longer, starting to connect.

"Everything's getting cheaper again. Musicians try to help each other. Venues are seeking to be helped by musicians. Without a real brotherhood we're not getting very far…

In the language of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, Atzmon is a maven. He spots and interprets and predicts trends. He plays the higher saxophones, alto and soprano, and has that priestly, incantatory power as a player which you get from Coltrane on soprano or Parker on alto. Atzmon has just played his "with strings" project in innovative promoter Christine Allen's inexpensive St Cyprian's series, and they have proved very popular.

So, what's next?

We talked at length about Atzmon's fervent desire to help the victims of brutality in Palestine. Palestine has disappeared from the front pages, and from Paxman's Newsnight. But it is front-of-mind for Atzmon. And he doesn't just talk, he is doing something about it.

Atzmon will be doing a charity gig at the 606 on 30th April as a fundraiser for medical charities working in Palestine. The music and the words which go with it will be a powerful demonstration of one man's committed defence of what he believes in.

Go. Book early. There will be no gig in London this year which stems from a deeper passion than Atzmon's wish to do something about helping the innocent victims of the Israeli invasion.

The passion of a man who now, finally, considers himself to be a Londoner. Which makes me proud to be one too.

On Wednesday, March 25, 2009

http://www.jazzcds.co.uk/artist_id_1/cd_id_1449

http://londonjazz.blogspot.com/2009/03/interview-gilad-atzmon.html

In Loving Memory of America

Gilad Atzmon moving tribute for America's greatest heroes

"On an especially cold Jerusalem night I heard Bird playing "April in Paris" on a radio program. I was knocked down. It was by far more organic, poetic, sentimental and yet wilder than anything I had ever heard before. Bird was a fierce libidinal extravaganza of wit and energy. The morning after, I decided to skip school, I rushed to the one and only music shop in Jerusalem. I found the jazz section and bought every album that was on the shelves. It was that moment when I fell in love with jazz, it was that moment when I fell in love in America"

Gilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon's latest album entitled In Loving Memory of America might well be the best album Gilad has ever recorded (and God knows Gilad recorded plenty of good music in the past). This latest album, however, stand apart from all his previous recordings.

The album is recorded with the Sigamos String Quartet (Ros Stephen and Emil Chakalov on violins, Rachel Robson one the viola and Daisy Vatalaro on the cello). His usual band (keyboard player Frank Harrison, bassist Yaron Stavi and drummer Asaf Sirkis) is also present. This unique combination of a jazz band with a string quartet will immediately reminds jazz fans of another famous jazz album: Charlie "Bird" Parker's "With Strings". Gilad's reference to Bird's album is also shown through several of the pieces also recorded on "With Strings", including the nostalgic and very moving "Everything Happens To Me" which begins Gilad's new album.

"In Loving Memory of America" is not, however, simply a re-recording of Bird's pieces: seven of Gilad's best past compositions are intertwined within Parker's jazz standards. What is amazing is how well these various compositions are blended together. For example, the third track on the album, Gilad's "musiK", is followed by "What Is This Thing Called Love" which is also present on Parker's recording. Gilad's version is, however, very different, slower, far more deliberate and tense, and it eventually "resolves" into Gilad's very moving "Call Me Stupid, Ungrateful, Vicious And Unstable" which begins with an almost Piazzolla-like opening with the strings supporting a lamentful exposition by Gilad's clarinet.

Gilad's use of the strings if far most complex and sophisticated than Parker's. The latter saw them mainly as a support for his instrument, whereas Gilad uses them much more as an interlocutor to his own phrases. Again, the figure of Piazzolla immediately comes to mind.

In fact, while Bird is the obvious reference, Piazzolla is the esoteric figure standing behind much of the lyricism and drama present in Gilad's latest album. Still, hints of this hidden filiation can even be found amongst Gilad's key musicians. Ros Stephen, for example, has played for many years in the tango quartet Tango Siempre. And can you guess who did many of the arrangements of "In Loving Memory of America"? The very same Ros Stephen, of course!

Still, for all the references found in this album, "In Loving Memory of America" is Gilad's album first and foremost. As John McLauglin likes to say, jazz musicians are "Thieves and Poets", and Gilad is not exception. Still, the poetry of Gilad's album is definitely uniquely his. Most importantly, it is Gilad's pain at seeing what the America of his youth has turned into which forms the basso continuo of this unique to this album.

One could ask whether the America of Gilad's youth every existed. I would say that it definitely did, if only in the hearts of those who listened to jazz music – America's beautiful gift to the world -in their youths. Gilad's music is a lament for the loss of this (mostly, but not exclusively, imagined) America, and it is a tribute to all those who share that pain today (one can think of all the jazz musicians who, with Charlie Haden, recorded the album Not In Our Name). Call it a much belated loss of innocence of poets and artists (the "bleeding hearts and artists" as Roger Waters would, no doubt, call them) , if you want, but somebody had to weep for this America the beautiful and jazz musicians did.

Music is probably the most sublime form of art because it allows to directly convey the the listener emotions which very often cannot be expressed in words. In this sense, it is also the most abstract art. The paradox, however, is that music and, in particular, jazz music is – or, at least, should be – also extremely subversive.

Emotions are, after all, probably the most powerful element of one's personality and, therefore, one of the most powerful influences on our thoughts and actions. In the booklet which comes with the album, Gilad writes: I do realise that ‘things have changed’. I do grasp that Jazz is not exactly a form of resistance anymore. It is not even a revolutionary art form. Maybe. Maybe not. But I don't believe that Gilad would ever have been capable of releasing such a powerful album if he did not feel that somebody out there was listening, feeling and understanding. The very fact that he did release this album is therefore an act of revolutionary resistance.

Sometimes, the emotion-idea is given rather directly, like in Gilad's piece "Refuge" which begins with a tension building Middle-Eastern melody which abruptly transforms itself in an African sounding explosion of joy. One could be forgiven for instinctively thinking of the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa and the precedent this sets for the last Apartheid-like regime left on this planet: the "Jewish state" of Israel. Sometimes, the emotion-idea is far more subtle, like in Gilad's "In The Small Hours", but no less powerful.

The entire album feels like a "painful embrace", painful because of the immense sadness it expresses, but an embrace nonetheless, because of the shared love it conveys to its audience. This mixture of seemingly contradictory feelings is yet another feature common to Gilad Atzmon and Astor Piazzolla. I sometimes think of it as "wise sadness" or "peaceful pain". It is this amazing capability for art to sublimate pain – or even agony- and to transform them into energy, beauty and hope.

There is one thing which Parker's and Gilad's albums definitely have in common: being deceptively easy to listen to. These albums need to be carefully listened to many times before they reveal all their nuances and subtleties . This is particularly true of Gilad's album which is, in many ways, a more complex and more multi-layered creation than Bird's more "straightforward" recording.

Two things should, in particular, be mentioned here: the very elegant and sophisticated arrangements and the very minimalist yet absolutely superb playing by Frank Harrison on the piano and, in particular, on the Fender Rhodes (a sound which I regret not hearing more often).

"In Loving Memory of America" is the kind of album which you can listen to for hours and days at a time without ever getting bored or feeling that you got enough of it. It is intoxicating and addictive as only the very best jazz albums ever are.

You can already order the album on Amazon in the UK, at Jazz CDs or, for those living in the USA, pre-order it at CD Universe.

Either way – get the album. It is truly a masterpiece.

 

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER:

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-loving-memory-of-america.html

Hasan: Dear Gilad, How do you evaluate the Israeli carnage in Gaza?

Gilad: Dear Hasan, I don’t really think that it is a matter of evaluation. We are all aware of the level of destruction brought upon innocent civilians by the Jewish state. Gaza looks as if it was nuked. Yet, as we know, the devastation is not the outcome of a single atomic bomb. It was actually a merciless and lengthy campaign conducted by a national and popular army that employed a chain of heavy bombardment using conventional and unconventional shells.  Gaza’s carnage is the outcome of a sinister, continuous, intense air raid against civilians in the most populated spot on this planet.  Hence, rather than evaluating the carnage itself, I am very interested in the evaluation of the people who are capable of bringing such destruction about. In other words, I am interested in the Israeli and the Jewish collective identity. I wonder how is it possible that the Israelis, the people who were ‘raised from the ashes’, have matured collectively into the embodiment of modern evil. How is it that Diaspora Jews happen to institutionally support Israel and its crimes against humanity? 

Hasan: Why does Israel always break the international laws and does not obey the agreements? 

Gilad: I assume that the Israeli is imbued with feelings of superiority that have something to do with the secular interpretation of the notion of Jewish Chosenness. At the end of the day, Israel is the Jewish state. Though Israel is largely a secular society, it manages to maintain the Judaic heritage of racial supremacy. It is actually the secular nationalist interpretation of Judaic tradition that had evolved into a collective murderous inclination. It is important to note that while within the Judaic context, chosenness is interpreted as a moral burden in which Jews are demanded to stand as an exemplification of ethical behaviour, in the Jewish state, chosenness is interpreted as an entitlement to dominate and kill.  Since the Israelis regard themselves as the chosen people, they clearly feel free of any ethical or moral concerns. Moreover, they are not concerned at all with other peoples’ or nations’ judgment or thought. This arrogant philosophy was defined by Israeli PM David Ben Gurion in the 1950’s when he said, “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim (Gentiles) say, the only thing that matters is what the Jews do.” 

Hasan: What is the importance of PM Erdogan’s reaction in Davos? 

Gilad: For me it is clear that PM Erdogan was rather courageous in confronting the Israeli lie on an international stage. Moreover, he really hit the nail on the head by exposing the ultimate symbol of this very lie. I am referring here to war criminal President Shimon Peres, who in spite of his devastating past (Kefar Kana, Nuclear reactor Dimona etc.) has managed to grab a Nobel Prize for peace. Considering his contribution to the Dimona WMD project, a Nobel Prize in nuclear physics would be more appropriate.  

Hasan: How does / can the Jewish lobby work against PM Erdogan and the Jews with conscience? 

Gilad: This is a very good question, I am not an expert on Jewish lobbying tactics. However I am fully aware of their influence. As long as British Labour finance is run by rabid Zionists such as Lord cash Machine Levy  and as long as White House chief of staff is a rabid Zionist, we should expect Zionist interests to shape our reality and this means a lot of conflicts, carnage and blood of innocent civilians.  

However, we have to bear in mind that the tide is turning. What we see and hear in Gaza brings about a mass indignation against Israel and its lobbies around the world.  

It is hard for me to predict what the measures taken by Jewish lobbies against PM Erdogan will be. He can probably expect himself to be presented as their new anti-Semite protagonist.  As we know it doesn’t take a lot to become one. While in the old days, anti-Semites were those who didn’t like Jews, nowadays, anti-Semites are those the Jews Hate. 

Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that Turkey’s friendship is very important for Israel. Turkey had been Israel’s only friend in the region. Lately, it had been a negotiator with Syria.  In short, Israel needs Turkey. 

Hasan: How can the Israeli-Turkish relations be effected after the Erdogan-Peres clash in Davos? 

Gilad: I really prefer not to answer this question, I am not exactly an expert on the subject… 

Hasan: What kind of days are waiting for Israel and Turkey in the global political arena? 

Gilad: Again, international affairs isn’t exactly a topic I specialise in.  

Hasan: Do you have a final message for the world and the Turkish people?

Gilad: I do not like to come with final messages for three reasons:

1.      I do not like final statements, I insist upon reserving the option of regretting and want to be able to revise my views on every possible topic.

2.      I believe that people who come with ‘final messages’ must be very important and clever. I am more of an artist. I look into myself, and I share what I see with my listeners and readers.

3.       Unlike politicians who know what is right and wrong for other people, I hardly know what is right for myself. 

However, my politics, so to say, are very simple. I am looking for an ethical voice. It means that in any given circumstance, I would try to find out myself what is right and what is wrong. I do not believe in dogmatism. I insist that the ethical search is a dynamic process of shaping and reshaping.

A week ago or so, a friend of mine, the legendary musician Robert Wyatt, helped me put it into words in the most eloquent and simple way. “My politics”, he said,  “is very simple, I am just an anti-racist”.  This is really what it is all about, being an ‘anti-racist’.

I am totally against any form of racist politics and this is why I despise any form of Jewish politics left, right and centre. I am tired of all these ‘Jew only’ settings. Whether it is the ‘Jews only state’ or ‘Jews for peace’. I am against it because; it is there to promote Jewish tribal interests rather than humanity and brotherhood. The Jewish political experience is somehow always racially orientated and chauvinist to the bone.

Though I believe that people are entitled to fight for their rights e.g., the Palestinian national struggle, I also believe that people should know how to reinstate peace and harmony. As far as Israel and Jewish politics is concerned, this is exactly what we lack. All we see is vengeance and anger that lead to more and more violence. It is rather apparent that Israelis are not familiar with the notion of mercy and compassion. Jesus’ spiritually harmonious suggestion known as ‘turning the other cheek’ sounds to the Israeli as an amusing ludicrous concept. Apparently, for them, ‘shock and awe’, sounds far more appealing. They democratically vote for carnage, destruction and genocide. At the end of the day, they are entitled to vote. They are the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’, at least this is what they claim to be.

source: http://en.timeturk.com/gilad-atzmonisrael-needs-turkey-15323-haberi.html

The World Economic Forum at Davos had an incredible moment of truth… After Shimon Peres was allowed to justify the wanton killing that the Jewish State engaged in over the territory they have strangled with their inhumane blockade, (and received applause for it by the men and women waiting for their champaign glasses to be filled after the dinner that of course was more important to them than hearing the words of the Prime Minister of the largest European State with a Muslim majority and one of the most strategic areas on the face of the earth), Tayyip Erdogan begins to respond to the barrage of filth poured out by Peres.

At the moment, our Turkish translators in www.tlaxcala.es are getting a verbatim translation of the intervention, which we will post up here as soon as it is available, but in the meantime,

Here is a translation found here: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/turkish-prime-minister-erdogan-leaves-the-debate-in-davos-translation/3833761515/?icid=VIDURVNWS06

Moderator: There was a heated debate here. This is a discussion that can

last for hours. We are already out of time.
Erdogan: One minute.
Moderator: Mr. President, well, you know
Erdodan: One minute, one minute! No! One minute.
Moderator: Ok, but I want you not to speak more than one minute.
Erdogan: Mr. Peres, you are older than me. Your voice is very loud. I know that you are speaking aloud because of the requirement of a sense of guilt. My voice will not be that loud. About murdering, you know killing very well. I am well aware how you murdered children on beaches. Two former prime ministers of your country had important sayings to me. You have former prime ministers who say When I entered Palestine over armed combat cars, I consider myself more and more pleased. I can give their names, maybe some of you wonder. Besides, I condemn those of you who applaud this persecution. Because applauding these killers who murdered those children, who massacred those people is, I believe, also another crime committed against humanity. Look, we cannot disregard a reality here. Here, I jotted down a lot of notes, but I dont have time to answer all of them. But, I will say you only two things:
Moderator: Excuse me Prime Minister, we can't start the debate again.
Erdogan: Excuse me. First, excuse me, do NOT interrupt me! First, The Old Testament says in the 6th commandment: You shall not kill! But there is murder here. Second, this is also very interesting. Gilad Atzmon, a Jew himself, says: Israeli barbarity is far beyond even ordinary cruelty. Besides, Avi Shlaim, Professor of Oxford who performed his military duty in Israeli army, says in the Guardian the following:
Moderator: Prime Minister, Prime Minister. I wanna ask to our host.
Erdogan: Israel became a gangster state. (to the moderator) I thank you, too. For me, Davos is done for me from now on. I will not come again. You all know this in this way. You are not letting us speak. (Showing Peres) He spoke for 25 minutes, but you let e speak 12 minutes. No way!

********************

Well, we at PTT think several things must be said:
1) More leaders should have the courage to speak out about the atrocities and to isolate Israel from sitting on a stage and endorsing their violence, which has no justification. That Erdogan did this, (and used also as his source writing by one of our editors, Gilad Atzmon), can only encourage us in our belief that sooner or later even people responsible for the guiding of a country numbering almost 63 million people, will stand up to Israel and say enough is enough. We are waiting for other Leaders to follow, the ice has been broken.

2) To state the obvious is no longer verboten. Things have to be called with their names, a State that is a menace to humanity and violent beyond all decency MUST be denounced in the loudest terms possible. We can't walk on eggshells anymore. For a leader to express the thoughts of his people (finally) rather than to kowtow to some impossible situation of sitting on the fence (and Turkey in many ways is a nation that has a lot to answer for in past and recent atrocities, as well as its position of support for the invasion of Iraq) moves a step in the right direction. It is NOT in the interests of Turkey to acquiesce all horrors and violence just to stay in the club. It is sometimes BEST to walk off when you realise the platform is there to present a justification for what cannot be justified. We believe that this brave action, widely appreciated by millions, is the first of a series. Of the entire Davos Forum, this was the moment cited in the news.. It is food for thought.

3) NO normalisation with Israel until they accept the rules of International Law. Thank you PM Erdogan, for listening to us, for using our words, and for using that international platform for expressing the views that we know millions of humanitarian people hold. You are enabling all of us.
Palestine Think Tank

Erdogan gets hero's welcome upon his return to Turkey

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50T20E20090130?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

(excerpt)

By Paul de Bendern

ISTANBUL (Reuters) – Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan received a hero's welcome on his return to Istanbul on Friday after accusing Israel of "knowing very well how to kill" during a heated debate at the World Economic Forum.

Erdogan stormed out of a debate on Israel's Gaza offensive on Thursday, and vowed he might never return to the annual gathering of the rich and powerful in Davos.

President Shimon Peres had launched a fiery defense of his country's offensive in Gaza over the past month, and with a raised voice and pointed finger, questioned what Erdogan would do if rockets were fired at Istanbul every night.

"When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill," Erdogan, visibly angry, responded as he sat next to Peres at the debate, which also included United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Arab League chief Amr Moussa.

Turkey, a predominantly Muslim but secular country that historically has had good ties with Israel and the Arab world, played a role in helping broker an end to the Gaza offensive this month, particularly by lobbying the Islamist Hamas group to declare a ceasefire.

Thousands of people gathered at Istanbul's Ataturk airport to greet Erdogan when he returned, waving Turkish and Palestinian flags and chanting "Turkey is proud of you."

"Our people would have expected the same reaction from any Turkish prime minister," he told a news conference at Ataturk airport on Friday morning after speaking to the crowd.

"This was a matter of the esteem and prestige of my country. Hence, my reaction had to be clear. I could not have allowed anyone to poison the prestige and in particular the honor of my country," he said.

"Our reproaches are not against the Israeli people or Jews. Our reproach is totally against the Israeli administration," Erdogan said.

a) Not in my Name

Written by Gilad Atzmon in 2004, it is an article which considers the issue of those Jews who claim to be secular and yet fight Zionism as Jews not as human beings. Jewish anti-Zionists, he says, have justified this by a) claiming their views as Jews are stronger than they would be if they were not speaking as Jews, and b) to prove there are good Jews.[11] He says in answer to a) that;

“If we believe in the transparency of a rational argument we must accept that the ethnic origin of an argument's provider should not have any effect upon its validity.” (§ 3).

Unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, this to me is quite a reasonable statement, since Israel and Zionists do not appear to take more notice of Jewish anti-Zionist opinions/arguments than of non-Jewish. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any evidence that non-Jews take any more notice. He continues the argument by proposing that Jews standing up against Zionism and saying ‘not in my name’ could be seen to imply that those Jews who do not stand up and say this are guilty.

“By saying ‘not in my name‘, they label the rest of the Jewish people as criminally liable for Zionist crime.“ (§ 5).

He goes on to say that such a personal pronouncement against certain actions of the Zionist state of Israel confirms a certain level of legitimacy. He suggests that a ‘Not in my Name’ protest to certain activities implies only a partial condemnation of the entity (Israel) with regard to these actions, and not a condemnation of the whole concept of Zionism and Israel. It is this which I think (so far) is part of what has got the Jewish left so angry. For example;

“…it is actually the sporadic rebels who criticise Zionism in the name of Jewish secular identity who affirm the Zionist totalitarian agenda. (§ 6) “Though I would appear to be blaming ‘good Jews’ for affirming Zionism I am fairly sure that those who apply such methods of resistance are far from being vicious. They are just naïve. They are presumably unaware of the implications of their marginal humanistic attitude.” (§ 9).

He states that to demand Jews to disapprove of Zionism in the name of their Jewish identity is to accept the Zionist philosophy and terminology which is predicated solely upon Jewish identity. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the logic of this criticism it is certainly not a phobic one, for it is a political/tactical criticism solely aimed at ‘the sporadic rebels’ among Jewish anti-Zionists and not extended to all Jews. He makes a similar point to one I have made elsewhere and which I repeat in the next section. It is that placing Jewish before every other label or identity suggests something unusual is happening. His examples are;

“…we have never come across an ‘Aryan for peace’, neither do we know of Russians who define themselves as ’Slavs for Human Rights’. We do not know many ’Celtic Marxists either. Such combinations sound pretty peculiar, not to say funny.” (§ 11).

In Gilad Atzmon’s view, based on this article, people should oppose Zionism in the name of humanity, not in the name of our ‘given’ religious, national, or ethnic identities. A similar opinion is presented by the philosopher Oren Ben-Dor. He argues;

“We must start not only to utter but to shout with conviction, as humans, that Israel has no moral right to preserve the premise of its statehood…” (ZNet Review, November 20, 2007).

As a humanist opponent of Israel and Zionism, I can only agree.[12] The premise of Israeli statehood is as an exclusive Jewish State, irrespective of whether this is secular orientated or religious. Gilad Atzmon then goes on to say;

“I learn from Palestinians and other supporters of the Palestinian cause that it is the Jewish and Israeli Left which defines the boundaries of the discussion. It is the Jewish Left which decides what is right and wrong….The Jewish Left is happy to denounce Sharon or Peres but any comparison between Zionism and any other manifestation of evil are forbidden. As soon as any real scrutiny of Zionism in metaphysical terms is posited, the righteous Jewish Left police will stop it immediately. As a result, Palestinian intellectuals and artists are paralysed. Most of them are terrified that if they say what they think the ’good Jews’ will label them as anti-Semites.” (§ 16).

Whether or not such an observation speaks to the experience of Palestine solidarity activists and supporters, I will leave for them to decide. However, even in this extended quote its motive is certainly not Judeophobic according to the criteria outlined above. The criticism has not been invented, further evidence to support this is contained in the polemics above. It is not extended to all Jews and it is in line with many other Jewish intellectuals thinking, (see Counterpunch ‘The Politics of Anti-Semitism‘.) who have not to my knowledge been convincingly accused of Judeophobia. He also states;

“Zionism is an extreme appearance of Jewish identity…It is racist, it is nationalist, and it is biblically inspired. Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from the Nazism.” (§ 16).

As noted above, this type of suggestion to my mind is no more phobic than suggesting Nazism was an extreme appearance of Germanic/Aryan identity. Whether we agree or not with the proposition is a different matter than judging it Judeophobic simply because we disagree. A couple of years ago I heard a Jewish academic who was also a holocaust survivor declare a similar opinion. No one stood up and denounced him. Gilad Atzmon suggests that Jew and Zionist is not a binary opposition (§ 20) and says that the only effective Jewish alternative to Zionism is assimilation. He correctly states that the late 19th century Zionist movement was there to stop assimilation. As an example of opposition to assimilation, he quotes Max Nordau, the Jewish philosopher who became a Zionist and was utterly racist. This same concern against assimilation is certainly evident in Herzl’s ‘The Jewish State’ (page 3) and in many other pronouncements by Jewish Zionists. So again this question will be contested and open to disagreement and debate but it is not a phobic one according to my definition. There is more in a similar vein. He ends by writing;

“It is necessary to fight Zionism as a human being, as an ‘English Jew’ rather than a Jew who lives in England…(§ 25)…Jews are at their very best when they leave the ghetto physically and mentally…when they join the human family without prejudice.” (§ 26)

Whether one agrees or not with Gilad Atzmon’s ideas, it is clear from this document (and the seven others I have read) and listening to him talk in Exeter, that in these instances he has not displayed any Judeophobia. Yes he is severely critical of Judaism, Israel and Zionism. He is also critical of the primary or what he sees as the confused motives of some of the Jewish left support for Palestinians, but both are articulated in a reasoned and sharp manner and not at all in a phobic or dismissive one. In the articles I have read, he operates essentially from a humanist position, which may not be popular in some circles, but in this he is not alone. To quote Akiva Orr.

“Humanism is a different value system. It puts the interests of humanity as a whole (however, one defines them) before any interest of any human group, and even one’s own personal interests. Such a value system is known as anthropocentric…. Anthropocentrism and ethnocentrism exclude each other. A person cannot uphold two different value systems. When a decision has to be taken, and the value systems guiding the choice are in conflict, one value system must prevail.” (Akiva Orr 'Israel, Politics and Identity’, page 129).

In this article ‘Not in my Name’ (and others) Gilad Atzmon is arguing against what I think he perceives as a form of Jewish ethnocentricism and he is doing so from a humanist or anthropocentric position. Anyone who does so will come into conflict with those wishing to defend and retain an ethnocentric identity. If humans are first and foremost humans and only secondarily other forms of identity, then they need to abandon much of their inherited tradition and begin to create another. Since all ‘traditions’ have been previously created, or in most cases ’manufactured’ by an elite, this is not an impossible task. However, it does often take a group of courageous innovators to lead the way in this field as in others. And as Claude Levi-Strauss noted;

“..the concept of an all inclusive humanity, which makes no distinction between races or cultures appeared very late in the history of mankind and…has not escaped periods of regression and ambiguity.“ (Levi-Strauss. ‘Structural Anthropology‘).

In the articles and counter-polemics examined above, as I see it, these two value systems are in conflict. That ethnocentric identity can arouse the deepest passions is evident, from history as well as contemporary life. For some people their ‘given’ and ‘inherited’ ethnic or religious identity has been internalised so deeply that they cannot let go of the idea (or ideal) of it, even when the reality should persuade them to do so. Although religious forms of universalism challenged religious particularism two millennia ago, universalism and humanism have still not fully permeated the pores of religious or secular life. But with the advent of philosophy and science, particularly anthropological studies;

“Customs that have ruled from time immemorial are suddenly open to comparison and judgement. For the first time, it is possible to distinguish the essential from the contingent, the natural from convention. Instead of experiencing it as truth, tradition becomes the subject of reflection. In the process of questioning the ways of the ancestors, an extraordinary concept emerges or allows itself to be seen, namely the idea of a single humanity.” (Alain Finkielkraut. ‘In the name of Humanity’ pub Columbia University Press, page 7).

Such historic questioning and the idea of a single humanity based upon non-exploited labour, was given an additional emphasis with the researches of Marx. However, the savage distortions perpetrated by the Bolshevik and Stalinist misinterpretations of his work have undoubtedly set back this forward-looking project. Since that demise there has been a retreat into nationalism, ethnicity and particularistic forms of religion. In the alienated atomised world of modernity, the search for meaning, solidarity and identity for the many anonymous and dispensable human cogs in capital’s industrial and commercially globalised world, has frequently gone into nostalgic idealism. This is despite the examples of the tragic directions this has led to during the 20th century and continues to do so in the 21st.

"Antisemitism (not merely the hatred of Jews), imperialism (not merely conquest), totalitarianism (not merely dictatorship) – one after the other, one more brutal than the other, have demonstrated that human dignity needs a new guarantee which can be found only in a new political principle, in a new law on earth, whose validity this time must comprehend the whole of humanity, while its power must remain strictly limited…We can no longer afford to take that which is good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time will bury in oblivion." (Hannah Arendt 'The origins of Totalitarianism' Preface to the 1st edition. Emphasis added).

For some people ethnicity and/or tradition have become the secular versions of the religious sense of communal belonging. In an alienated world, the need to feel ethnically proud and different (and thus by degrees become ethnocentric) is often an ‘idea’ to be protected, sanitised and idealised. Those ‘born again’ into feeling that way may get angry with any members ‘within’ the ethnicity who are seen to besmirch this idealised view and livid with those ‘outside’ who criticise it. Intellectual criticism of such deeply felt ethnicity may not always be met calmly or rationally. If dying for and killing for the survival of one’s ethnic identity and not just one’s life as a human being is a choice some people make, (and some undoubtedly do) then we are in difficult times. And as Edward Said noted;

“…the politics of identity and partition…..have brought more trouble than they are worth, nowhere more than when they are associated with precisely those things, such as humanities, traditions, art, values, that identity allegedly defends and safeguards, constituting in the process territories and selves that seem to require killing rather than living.” (Edward Said ‘Humanism and Democratic Criticism’, page 77).

His is no lone voice. There is also increasing recognition that particularist struggles and identity politics are no match for the globalised economic neo-liberal elite and their resource hungry agenda, part of which is the military control (with Israel as a prime forward base) of the Middle East/Near Orient;

"In this new globalized context the victories of identity-politics have amounted to rearranging the furniture while the house burned down" (Naomi Klein. ‘No Logo’ page 123).

Yet, unfortunately, we are actually in what Levi-Strauss identifies as a period of regression and ambiguity regarding humanism. For ethnicity and religiosity also now reassert themselves in the form of fundamentalisms within numerous national, religious and even regional identities. Nevertheless, ethnocentrism and religion, along with nationalism represents a past which continues to tragically haunt the present and the struggle for a consistent humanism/anthropomorphism represents the future. A recognition of this suggests another possible line of inquiry as to why so much heat has been generated. Not it seems by the extreme Zionist atrocities in occupied Palestine Gaza and Lebanon, but by the appearance in Exeter of one talented Jazz musician, who happens to be from a Jewish background and expresses a humanist opinion, not only in support of Palestinians but also (as it should do) one probingly critical of the religion, culture and state he was born into. Before returning to that line of enquiry it is worth considering another article which has been condemned by the same sources.

d) Jewish Power

This is the title of an article written in 2004 by Paul Eisen which has caused much anger and vilification. This author is also said to be Judeophobic. He writes;

“The crimes against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons with Jewish religious symbols all over them, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organised Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do. The past is just too terrible. All of us know of the hatred and violence to which accusations against Jews have led in the past.” (§ 5).

This statement is neither phobic nor insensitive. It is a statement of fact. The author goes on (§ 6) to state that in his view Zionism is at the heart of Jewish life with many religious Jews amongst the most virulent of Zionists. He argues (§ 8) that Jewishness is inextricably bound to Judaism via a shared history both real and imagined (§ 9). Not only that, he adds, but they also feel a shared destiny which confers a ’specialness’. For the religious Jew it is the ‘special covenant’ with God, for the secular Jew it is a ‘special history’ (§ 11). He notes (§ 13 and § 14) that the special suffering of Jews unites them and that Zionism confirms this. This feeling special would not be a problem, he argues, but for an additional element.

“This is the problem with Zionism. It expresses Jewish identity but also empowers it. It tells Jews (and many others) that Jews can do what Jews have always dreamed of doing. It takes the perfectly acceptable religious feelings of Jews, or if you prefer, the perfectly harmless delusions of Jews, and tries to turn them into a terrible reality. Jewish notions of specialness, chosenness, and even supremacism, are fine for a small, wandering people, but, when empowered with a state, an army and F16’s becomes a concern for us all.” (§ 15).

He too makes the analogy of Zionism with Fascism, saying that this Jewish ideology, in its zealotry and irrationality, resembles more the National Socialism which condemned millions in its nonsensical racial and ethnic supremacy. They (Nazism and Zionism) both sought to maintain racial/ethnic purity of one group and to maintain the rights of that ethnic group over others (§ 18). In a section on American Jews, the author questions that Near Orient/Middle East oil alone is sufficient reason to explain North American support for Israel. He suggests the Jewish Lobby comprised of “..billionaires, media magnates, politicians, activists and religious leaders..” , plays a significant part. Noting that in the modern era Jews are never portrayed in anything other than a favourable light, yet discounting conspiracy theories, he writes;

“Nor is it any wonder that Jews in influential positions are inclined to promote what they see as Jewish collective interests. Is it really all that incredible that Jewish advisors around the Presidency bear Israel’s interests at heart when they advise the President on foreign affairs?” (§ 25).

He notes that this is no different than any other group of citizens (§ 26) but what is different is the fact that this concerted and co-ordinated lobby is more often than not denied (§ 28). In another paragraph he makes an allusion to the fake world conspiracy ideas contained within the Protocols of the Elders of Zion writing;

“This conflation of Jewish interests with American interests is nowhere more stark than in present American foreign policy. If ever an image was reminiscent of a Jewish world conspiracy, the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East, this must be it.” (§ 29)

That this is perhaps an insensitive formulation is clear. Whether this reference is phobic or not is a separate question. The point being made is deliberately and provocatively put but it is actually making the same point as that made two years later by the authors of the Harvard University research paper ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy‘ (March 2006). This latter paper concluded that; “…the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby‘” (page 1).

He notes that the Holocaust Memorial in Washington was erected to commemorate a tragedy not committed on Americans, by people who were not Americans and in a place very far from America. He asks, (§ 30) how is it possible that such a memorial representing only 2 per cent of the American population can be built in the heart of America? Since there is no comparable memorial on Black American slavery, indigenous Indian massacres or the attack on Pearl Harbour, the implication is that there must be those of Jewish ethnicity who have enormous influence. Moving on to the depiction of Jewish Shoah/Holocaust suffering he contrasts how this is treated in comparison to the millions of non-Jews who died. He notes that the Shoah/Holocaust is treated as being beyond examination and scrutiny. He notes that those who question the Holocaust narrative may comprise of crazy Jew-haters or scholars seeking the truth, but that for him this is not the real point.

“…the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the slave trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why?” (§ 38).

He suggests it is because Jewish suffering underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere. He then (§’s 39/40/41) mentions Israel Shamir and his theories of Jewishness being about an ideology of chosenness, exclusivity and supremacism, rather than race or tribal ethnicity. He states that Israel Shamir has never called for harm to be done to Jews or anyone else and then writes;

“One doesn’t need to be in complete agreement with Shamir to understand what he is talking about.” (§ 43).

Quoting Primo Levi on the dangers of lumping all the people of a nation together as if they all thought and acted the same, yet still observing that some peoples have general characteristics, he asks if this is an appropriate hypothesis for Jews. This characteristic or ‘spirit’ is what he says Shamir is concerned about identifying. He quotes Rabbi Mark Solomon (§ 47) on the view that the concept of something special being passed down a certain genetic line which the Rabbi describes as ’metaphysical racism’. He observes that even secular Jews who are opposed to all religions still call themselves Jews and still turn up to solidarity rallies only with other Jews. He asks; ’What is their ideology? Whilst not providing an answer he writes;

“Whatever the motive, this self-identity runs very deep indeed. Amongst these Jews, no matter how left or progressive they may be, one may criticise Israel to the nth degree, poke fun at the Jewish establishment and even shamefully denigrate Judaism as a religion, but depart one iota from the approved text on anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering, and you are in deep trouble.” (§ 49).

He notes that the secular tradition of Jewishness has been at the forefront of Zionism’s assault on the Palestinians and lists a number of them (§ 51). He says many of them have been life-long activists for many causes but they call for a Palestinian state on only 22 per cent of the Palestinian homeland, knowing this would be weak, dominated by the Israeli economy and under the guns of the Israeli military. In speeches they call;

“Down with the occupation, ‘down with the occupation‘, ‘down with the occupation’, but not a word of the inherent injustice of a state for Jews only; perhaps a mention of ill-gotten gains of 1948, but nothing of the right of return of the refugee..” (§ 53).

This is an observation I have made myself over a number of years. In fact, a booklet recently passed to me called ‘Counter-Rhetoric' emanates from this Jewish Left strand. Like the official Israeli perspective it still makes no mention of colonisation or the injustice of a Jews Only state and among other things clearly wishes to fob the Palestinians off with 22% of their original homeland (Counter-Rhetoric page 5.) Paul Eisen comments that using the phrase ’the Jews’ is terrifying because of its past association with discrimination and violence, and that people in solidarity movements are afraid to criticise Jews because of the blurred outlines and confusingly changing forms of Jewishness. He then argues that;

“If the American military lays waste a third world country, it is done by order of the government (a small group) with the full support of the ruling elites (another small group), the tacit support of a substantial segment of the population (a larger group), the silent denial of probably the majority of the population (a very large group) and the opposition of a tiny minority (a small group). Is it all that different with Jews?” (§ 58).

He states that although the Jews are not a legally constituted body like the United States, and are not all on one area of land, they nonetheless have informal leaders, organisations and an extensive network of linked Jewish bodies which do have policies and are full square behind Zionism and its assault on the Palestinians. So why do we not hold these Jewish people responsible for what is happening to Palestinians? The answer, he says, is because we are frightened that it may open the flood-gates to a burst of Jew hatred. He asks;

“Does speaking the truth about Jewish identity, power and history lead to Jews being led to concentration camps and ovens? Of course it doesn’t! It is hatred, fear and the suppression of free thought and speech which leads to these things – whether the hatred, fear and suppression is directed against Jews or by Jews.” (§ 64).

My understanding of the rise of Nazism in Germany concurs with this assertion. Jews were not subjected to a holocaust until the Nazis had gained absolute power, eliminated their opponents and instituted a totalitarian military/police state. He finishes by noting that by engaging with these questions he will be called an anti-Semite. He says; “But so what?” The fact that Jews in Israel/Palestine are desecrating churches and mosques and brutally oppressing entire Christian and Muslim populations makes it hard to get excited about graffiti daubed on a synagogue somewhere. And;

“Edward Said spent a lifetime picking his way through the Israel/Zionism/Judaism minefield and never once criticised the Jews, and he was called an anti-Semite his whole life, right up to and even after his death.” (§ 65).

Whilst there may be many things to dispute in this paper and others requiring clarification or further substantiation, it is quite clear that this is not a phobic attack upon Jews by a fellow Jew or ex Jew. To me, the main arguments are rational and limited to the focus of the discussion. I can see that some of the allusions and arguments he makes may be hurtful to some Jews, particularly those on the left and particularly those who fervently wish to maintain a Jewish ethnicity. However, making people uncomfortable by pointing out (correctly or even incorrectly) the contradictions they hold on to is not the same as being phobic. In the papers examined so far there have been no Xenophobic extensions from individual cases generalised to all, there have been no Chimeric inventions. As with most criticisms no one is forced to wear a cap which doesn’t actually fit him or her. If any of those criticisms do not apply to the reader they needn’t be taken personally and perceived as hurtful. Whilst I do think we should be concerned about slogans daubed on synagogue walls I can, for example, see the point he is making concerning the hypocrisy involved in many Jews complaining about this whilst supporting or staying quiet over house demolitions, checkpoints, incursions and assassinations, etc., in Palestine. Whilst I personally would not make a comparison between the Jewish neo-cons support for Israel and the fictitious world conspiracy, this does not alter the fact that there are indeed machinations, secret meetings, behind the scenes intrigues, collusions at all levels of government in the so-called open societies of the west and, by their own admission, Zionists have been involved in very many of these.[i]

5. POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS

As is self-evident, a lot of the energy and emotion around this polemic against Gilad Atzmon and ‘others’, anti-Semitism’ is emanating from within a Jewish left/socialist strand. In many ways the concept of a Jewish left or Socialism is a contradiction, for socialism, at least in the anti-capitalist tradition of Marx, supersedes all other forms of identity. Socialism in this and the original communard tradition, before the massive distortion of Bolshevism/Stalinism, was conceived as overcoming or transcending the historical barriers between humanity erected upon religion, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity or class.[13] This form of socialism I now call revolutionary humanism in order to not only be clear about its main ethical paradigm (the welfare of all humanity and its eco-systems), but also to signpost its commitment to a revolutionary transformation of the capital-dominated socio-economic system which perpetuates and utilises these divisions. In this tradition of Marx, socialism, distorted as it became in the Soviet Union, at least initially (and for some time) declared as its mission the equality of all citizens. For a long time they refused to identity each other by anything other than comrade. Trotsky for example never once publicly referred to himself as a Jewish Bolshevik or Jewish Commissar, or even as a Bolshevik or communist Jew. Only the Nazis drew attention to his parents’ and childhood religio-ethnic background. The same was true of very many other revolutionaries of Jewish parentage. Some in the lower ranks (and the Bund) may have continued to see themselves as Jews first and communist/socialists second but those of the most committed and occasionally far-sighted kept firmly to the vision of collective humanity and declined to use any identifier which trumped, detracted or obscured this.

The use of the term Jewish, placed before anything which resembles the socialist humanism of the kind envisaged by Marx is therefore not only an ethnocentric anachronism, but as noted earlier, it is a contradiction. Whatever its presumed (and apparently contested) effectiveness as a short-term tactic in anti-Zionism, its strategic use in relationship to socialist humanism is retrograde. For it represents a decision to preserve the ethnic division and separation of Jewishness within collective humanity. It does not seek to abandon and/or transcend those historic and tragic divisions but conserve them and reserve for them a special place within humanity. For;

“Ethnocentrism, the mirror image of xenophobia, ascribes a special status to your group. It is expressed in the argument that a certain group is the carrier of special, unique values, to the exclusion of all others. It is not just the recognition of difference, but a claim of uniqueness and superiority, based on extraordinary qualities residing in the group.” (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. ‘Original Sins’. page 10).

It is clear from this that ethnocentrism can come pretty close if not provide an exact match for a form of racism. In ascribing a special status and superiority to your group it implicitly invites others to put their historic ethnic traditions before the concept of universal humanity. Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Afro-Caribbeans, etc. etc., would be perfectly entitled to do exactly the same and claim their uniqueness and superiority. On this basis, the social-evolutionary aim of one humanity who happen to live in different locations, enjoy different climates, wear different clothes and eat different foods, and where each is seen as different but not superior or inferior, would be unattainable. For to preserve these special distinctions (and pass them on) there would have to be a rationale (and an alleged advantage) for belonging to one rather than another or in preference to belonging to none! It matters little how innocuous that rationalisation and real (or imagined) advantage might sound, its very existence, its raison d’être, would be divisive because its purpose would be to justify difference and separation.

In my whole 50 years of solidarity activism I have not come across or read of any other revolutionary socialists or humanist-based activists who have seriously wished to put their ethnicity or nationality before their political identity of socialist or communist. There is also another problem for those who wish to consider themselves Jews first and socialists second. It is a problem which few, if any other, ethnicities would have.

The fact of a long history of culturally/religiously inspired Judeophobia together with the atrocities of Israel and the complicity by silence or support of many Jewish people throughout the Diaspora, means there is an ever-present possibility of a resurgence of militant Judeophobia, particularly in countries of the Middle East. This means that those who designate themselves as Jewish Socialists, as with many other people of Jewish ethnicity who wish to preserve it, must have a greater or lesser existential fear of being caught up in any such resurgence. Sadly, being blamed by reason of their religion or of their ethnicity (guilt by association) for Israel’s Zionist inhumanity must be a constant (and again sadly, not an entirely irrational) fear. This at a conscious or sub-conscious level is likely to make some of them hypersensitive and highly emotionally responsive to even an indirect hint of criticism aimed at Judaism or Jewish ethnicity which is not directly and obviously linked to the Zionist regime in Israel. Some, (as with most of us – only more so -over some particularly sensitive issue or other) may even imagine it when it really isn’t there. It would take a personality not so threatened or emotional to calmly distinguish between a reasoned criticism and a prejudiced phobia.[14] If this is true (and it is) of real Judeophobes who consistently fail to distinguish between what is real and what is feared, it is just possible (since they too are human beings) that those possibly on the receiving end may also have difficulty in distinguishing between what is real and what is feared. Seeing Judeophobia almost everywhere, and/or fearing it in rational criticism could be itself a form of phobia, a type of Xenophobia, to be exact. A greater or lesser part of such Jewish socialists lives and concerns may well tend to orbit around opposing any manifestation of what they consider Judeophobia or anti-Semitism. On the possible exaggeration of this read, for example Raul Hilburg’s points (author of ‘The Destruction of the Jews in Europe‘) in Logos 6.12 Winter/Spring 2007 on historical revisionism, the term anti-Semitism and its historic demise along with the cultures which spawned it.

The very Judeophobia which provided the impetuous and justification for the Zionist 19th century project and the 20th century state of Israel would be at the same time the most dire existential threat to anti-Zionist Jews among which are many Jewish Socialists or 'lefts'. A number (not all) on both sides, Zionist and anti-Zionist, are likely to be somewhat obsessed by anti-Semitism. What the one side (Israel and ardent Zionists) are content to draw attention to in order to aggressively ‘face off‘ the world, the other (anti-Zionists) would be dismayed and want to see less of in order to peacefully face the world. Both these constituencies will be on the maximum alert for any direct or indirect possibilities of Judeophobia. Zionists and Israel to say, “see, this is why a Jewish state is necessary“, the other side to stamp it out and free themselves of any personal or collective anxiety. The motivating force of these differing orbits around the real or imagined existence of Judeophobia is more likely to be apprehension, horror and fear, however much they might deny it or rationalise their motives as being in the interests of peace for all humanity. For it is in the interests of peace for all humanity to abandon any primary identity other than being human and equal. And in this any Jewish Socialists in the tradition of Marx (not the ‘Marxists’ – that’s another sad story!) should be leading the way forward, not backward. Marx was not being literal about ‘chains’ when he made his famous humanist call; ’Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains‘. Amongst those chains are ideologies of nationality, religion and ethnicity, for they shackle people to a past and present based upon discrimination, mythical chosenness, imagined superiority and a greater or lesser fear of the ‘other‘.

This perspective may seem utopian, but as Akiva Orr correctly stated; ’It is better to struggle for what we really want and not get it, than to struggle for what we don’t want and get it‘. And nothing in this aspect of life can be achieved collectively in practice without first recognising it, articulating it in conceptual terms and by some putting it into practice.

Breaking out of the historically constructed ghettos of Ethnicity, Nationalism, Racism, Tribalism and Religion, of our own or others making, is an important step and freedom to criticise is an important element in that process. The socialist Rosa Luxemburg, murdered by Fascists, made the point well.

“…I have no special corner of my heart reserved for the ghetto: I am at home wherever in the world there are clouds, birds and human tears….” (Rosa Luxemburg. Letter from prison 16/2/17).

The revolutionary humanism of Karl Marx and those who associate with this original viewpoint want to struggle for a world where a person is seen as a brother and sister human being first and any other (pejoratively used) identification way behind in second or third place, if not ditched altogether.[15] This may not be the present understanding of those millions of ordinary people of the world, who have been taught by the ‘powers-that-be’ (political or religious) for divisive reasons to elevate their national, ethnic or religious tradition above any other identifier. However, in any great period of upheaval whether in 17th – 20th century Europe or in modern South America, people in flux throw off those confining straight jackets of taught tradition and co-operate with each other as citizen, comrade, brother or sister. Those really in the revolutionary-humanist tradition of Marx do not wait until such turmoil occurs but anticipate it and embrace it now.

In turning from the possibility of obsessional and understandably emotional reactions to alleged Judeophobia we should not forget another reason for a careful and serious consideration of any such charges. We should not forget Noam Chomsky’s advice and warning with regard to the politics of Palestinian solidarity and the Zionist plus Israeli opposition to this. He notes, regarding Israeli intelligence;

“According to a CIA study, one of its functions is to acquire data for use in silencing anti-Israeli factions in the West, along, with…character assassination and black propaganda. They also attempt to penetrate anti-Zionist elements in order to neutralise the opposition.” (N. Chomsky. ’The Fateful Triangle’. Pluto Press, footnote on page 11).

This is not to accuse or insinuate anything at all regarding the discussion/debate within Exeter and elsewhere, it is merely to note another reason for examining the issues ourselves and with a great deal of caution and care. And it also serves as a reminder to us not to be frustrated at the fact that the issue of Israel, Zionism and the charge of Judeophobia can at times get extremely confusing. On the humanitarian level it is easier to understand a colonial conquest of brutal dimensions and the varying tempo of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, than it is to get one’s head around some of these often esoteric sounding and emotionally charged disputes.

There is now one more aspect to cover in this review of polemics around Judeophobia. It is this. Why is it that some people who are not Jews and have no reason for any hypersensitity to, or existential fear of, Judeophobia, demonstrate the same obsessive compulsion to find Judeophobia even where it may not really exist? Not only this, but to assert its existence and perhaps ignore possible manipulation of texts in order to conjure up the appearances of the phenomena! The answer could be simple. It could also be fear and apprehension. Not an existential fear for their actual lives but an existential fear of losing the appearance of being politically correct leaders. I have met this characteristic on many occasions although it is always strenuously denied. Yet it is a logical consequence of being part of the vanguard. If you imagine yourself as part of the ‘vanguard’ of enlightened future leaders of the world’s oppressed (or even the local oppressed) in the struggle against oppression, then you cannot afford not be at the forefront and cutting edge of political correctness. This is necessary so that all your future followers among the oppressed will recognise not only your ability, but the desirability of choosing you as their leaders. Your own self-image also demands it. And of course a large section of the oppressed are the Jews. Not particularly the Jewish Capitalists and Financiers, but the Jewish masses, who are distributed among the middle and working classes. So if the Jewish masses are oppressed by the means of Judeophobia then you as a part of the ‘vanguard’ must be close to the forefront if not at it on this question. So far, so good. Or perhaps not so good when you think of the colossal arrogance in some of the ‘vanguard’ posturing. However, the question of how to identify and oppose Judeophobia remains. There are two possibilities here. First, you can draw up your own definition of Judeophobia/anti-Semitism, distinguish it from legitimate criticism and then proceed to evaluate those instances of criticism which seem to have a phobic element to them against the criteria within your definition. Second, if that seems too daunting a task or you haven’t the time, then borrow someone else’s opinion of what constitutes Judeophobia and use that and rely upon them to alert you to transgressions. What better sources for this alternative ‘borrowed’ opinion than that of Jewish anti-Zionists or Jewish Socialists? Well, noble and sensible as this gesture seems, there are two serious problems with it. One is that those most at risk of Judeophobia even if they are not obsessive about it are more likely to exaggerate its presence or mistake its identity. This is what I think happened in Exeter not too long ago (2005/2006) with regard to Norman Finkelstein. Because of his book on the ‘Holocaust Industry’ some on the left initially at least partly followed the Zionist line accusing him of ‘distortion’ and declaring him anti-Semitic, only later to apparently change their minds.

This result points us to a second problem with this kind of process. As noted elsewhere, if you borrow and don’t truly ’own’ the opinion by research yourself, it is likely to have to be suddenly abandoned if it is later proved inaccurate or wrong.[16] Then, of course, your credentials for the ‘vanguard’ position begin to be doubly questioned. Your image of leadership, at least in the eyes of others, starts to evaporate. You can of course then bluster, make excuses, try some nifty intellectual footwork to dodge the problem, deny that it is or was wrong or just change the subject and move onto other things. Just like any other politician. But then again in the eyes of those who have seen this error and/or manoeuvring, the game is up. Caught out in this way, the only remedy is honest admission and apology. Sadly few would-be ‘vanguard’ leaders are capable of such honesty and courage.

6. CONCLUSION

As I have stated elsewhere, there is a constant danger of the introduction of what Orwell in 1984 called ‘thought crime’. That is to say some ‘outside’ ‘authority’ declares that some opinions, thoughts and avenues of study are tantamount to crimes. If the external authority is strong enough or sufficiently influential, this will result in the operation of an internal censor within individuals and collectives. Fear of punishment, embarrassment or even guilt may make a person stifle him or herself and perhaps try to restrain others. However, this will not prevent people from thinking these things and may even strengthen their views. The fear of ’thought crime’ is itself a phobic fear for it is predicated on a view that thinking or saying something which may offend someone will automatically result in doing something offensive to them. Whilst this may occur with a few people it is a phobic over reaction itself to extend this possibility to everyone. The most recent public outing of this type of phobia was in the response of many Muslims to the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. There is no evidence that such cartoons would encourage the general non-Muslim population to attack Muslims or mosques. A few racists might, but they might do so anyway for any other reason they choose to latch onto. The racist phobias of a few should not allow the freedom of expression and criticism for the many to be curtailed. Whilst cartoons can be disrespectful, and even hurtful, as with words that is not necessarily the same as being phobic. But in any case, it is impossible to stop people thinking things. It is only possible to stop them saying things in places where they may be accountable. I personally do not support censorship, nor recommend that we should drive opinions we don’t agree with underground. Better in the open to counter them and combat them. It is also worth remembering that all advances in science, literature, art, history, etc., have been at the expense of offending some vested interest or other, no matter how humane the intention, it is simply par for the course. Science and humanist-based discourse has always offended religious minded people, the evolution of secular anthropocentrism has always been opposed by advocates of secular ethnicity.

I have not read all the material produced by Gilad Atzmon or those he has been linked with, but I shall attempt to read more over the summer. However, those I have read (seven articles in all) have not – according to the definitions outlined earlier – fallen into the categories of Judeophobic, Fascist-minded or Shoah/Holocaust denial. I could produce more extracts, but already this paper is too long. As always, I caution against taking anybody’s word for important matters – including mine! Those concerned should read as much of the actual material (and relevant background material) as they need to satisfy themselves. But in expressing my views I should add, that in the few polemics against him that I have read so far, I have been struck by the almost complete lack of rigour, clarity, humility or humanity within them and the complete lack of dignity or worthy intent they grant those with opposing views. Assertions, taking words out of context and reading more into them than is there, may now I guess be also directed against me. For such is the politico/psychological investment and emotional momentum involved I am sure to be accused of defending a Judeophobe, if not accused of becoming one myself. However, such accusations – if they appear – will no doubt reveal clear sectarian characteristics for these emerge whenever solidarity opinions which differ are not viewed as different and subject to reasoned debate, but subject to outright condemnation as malign and deliberately dangerous. Again, to my mind such reactions can only be explained by the highly emotional reaction some people have to critical comments which they ‘fear’ may contribute to the rise of Judeophobia or injure their own individual or collective self-image. It is clear to my mind that the biggest contributors to the past and occasionally present Judeophobia have been militant ‘literal’ Christians and those who ‘believed‘ and echoed their views.[17] And any future rise or resurgence of this phenomenon will be actually promoted by the actions of the Zionists and the leaders and many supporters of the state of Israel. It is against these that everyone who supports the struggle of the Palestinians should direct the bulk of their clear and reasoned opposition.

Finally! Faced with an opponent as strong and well equipped as Israel and Zionism, any opposition and solidarity movement should be built upon the broadest possible basis. In such a broad movement, there will be a wide range of opinions. Providing they do not contradict the principles of the solidarity movement such varying views are not only unavoidable but an important resource of analysis, motivation and possible directions for action. Accordingly we individually and collectively welcome the support of those orthodox Jews, many of whom may well consider that the sins of the Jews brought the holocaust upon themselves and whose traditional religious ideas are racist, sexist and homophobic. We also work alongside liberal anti-Zionist Jews, many of whom wish to retain and maintain Israel on the back of the Nakba and the land stolen up to 1967. We embrace Christian anti-Zionists, whose New Testament scriptures are replete with Judeophobic accusations. In addition we share platforms and encourage constructive dialogue with Hamas, although many of them think the Protocols are genuine and whose views on women and non-believers are not as charitable as many of us would like. As can be expected in a broad-based movement we have heard no lengthy polemics against collaborating with this varied tapestry of pro-Palestinian supporters. And yet we are warned not to have anything to do with one Gilad Atzmon who unequivocally opposes Zionism, supports the right of return and apparently all other PSC principles. What an amazing set of contradictions are at play in this scenario of who we can associate with without adverse comment and who we should not! Not to mention this contrast revealing a position regrettably located on the slippery slope of hypocrisy.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2008)

[11] There is an implicit questioning of the motives of some (not all) Jewish anti-Zionists in point b). For it introduces the possibility that a desire to defend an honourable form of Jewishness (an ethnocentric protectionist motive) may actually be greater than the desire to see complete justice for the Palestinians (an anthropomorphic or humanist motive).

[12] For example, a phrase such as ‘Christians against anti-Semitism’ would have profound implications even if they were not realised by whoever might adopt such an identifier. The Christian Gospels, particularly John, Acts, Romans, 1. Corinthians and Galations, contain all the seeds of the subsequent socio-religious Judeophobia lasting from the Roman Empire through the Middle-ages to the 20th century. A Christian against Judeophobia/anti-Semitism – to be serious and consistent – would have to renounce and negate substantial parts of their scriptures and their religious history, along with consequent questioning of much of the rest.

[13] Of course there are many other alternative viewpoints which represent themselves as socialist. No doubt in certain circumstances the ex Labour Party Prime Minister, Tony Blair (along with many other Labour Party members, particularly those in the ‘Friends of Israel’ group) has described himself as one. Also there is still in existence an organisation called the ‘Socialist International’ to which belong the Zionist Labour Party of Israel, whose one time leader, Shimon Peres, is on record as defending the ‘historic rights’ (Biblical) of Jews to the land of Israel. So simply declaring oneself a ‘socialist’ does not guarantee you will be fully on the side of the Palestinians. Nor does being a Trade Unionist as Gershon Shafir makes clear in his book ‘Land, Labor and the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict‘. It may mean that such 'trade unionists', ‘socialists’ and ‘peace’ campaigners wish to preserve the Jewish nature of Israel but within the bounds established in 1967. In other words, to legalise by treaty or other ‘agreement’ the land and resources stolen from 1948 to 1967.

[14] Most religions have a phobic element to them. The Christian fear of the ‘Jews’ as manifest in the ‘blood libels’ and Protocols are well known as is ‘homophobia‘. Judaism has also numerous phobias concerning ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’, menstrual discharge, masturbation, homosexual relations and some food/clothing taboos .

[15] This perspective is not an attempt to imagine or project some idyllic future utopia, for disagreements, conflicts and tensions can and will still arise. But they can be dealt with humanely between equals, without the need to assert superiority. As is already the case now in many areas of life.

[16] On the whole question of ‘borrowed’ thinking see Erich Fromm on the dangers of ‘pseudo-thinking’ in ‘Fear of Freedom’ (chapter 5).

[17] Despite my sympathy for the humanist aspirations buried deep within the genocidal and mystical scriptures of most religions, I often wonder why socialists passionately interested in combating Judeophobia don’t campaign against the dissemination of the Judeophobic sections of the Christian gospels noted earlier. These are still utilised not only for church and chapel goers but also in thousands of Primary Schools in England, Wales, parts of North America, and possibly elsewhere.

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'

Desperation tires until it becomes true,
and hope until its desire is realized.
The Story of Abencerraje and the Lovely Jarifa

Today, Gilad Atzmon is no stranger to the Spanish language audience. In 2003, when by chance, I came across an article of his, published in Counterpunch, that was not the case. Since at the time, I still followed certain forms of “netiquette,” before translating the article into Spanish, I wrote him respectfully, requesting permission. Of course he granted it immediately and that first article was published in Rebelión, “Los errores más habituales del pueblo israelí [The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis],” marking not only the beginning of his ascendance among lucid and rigorous readers such as himself, but also, our friendship.

There’s something in his writing that attracted me immediately. Being as he is, an almost mono-thematic author (although at times he writes about jazz – music is his “official” profession – the majority of his articles deal with the conceptual roots of this extremely complex conflict implanted in the Middle East by the United Nations with the artificial creation in 1948 of the State of Israel), his conclusions are always pointed, but never pamphleteering. I must say right away, that in principle, I have nothing against pamphlets. Indeed, I believe I’ve already publicly stated that in these ideologically decaffeinated times, the pamphlet fills a necessary political function, even if everything that it gains in spontaneity and incisive power is lost in reflection. Gilad Atzmon is, primarily, a thoughtful author. Not for nothing did he study philosophy before making the decision to devote his life to jazz.

With him, I’ve learned (and his readers as well) to move through the intricate conceptual jungle of Zionism, without falling for the trick of turning two terms that have nothing to do with one another into synonyms – anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism – and above all, to analyze Jewishness from the point of view of identity, a concept that immediately eliminates any kind of racial notion and deactivates the “anti-Semitic trap” that Zionism extends to anyone who dares to criticize the criminal acts committed – deceitfully, in the name of Judaism – by the racist State of Israel (a State only for Jews, lest we forget).

The article that I translate and comment on today, “The Jewish Experience,” is a new twist in the Atzmonian analytical process of deconstruction of Zionism. Specifically, it sheds a different light on this up until now insoluble problem. The hypothesis that Atzmon has decided to classify as Jewish experience, is at the same time, simple and revolutionary, like all great ideas, and is based on a simple premise, masterfully described in an anonymous Moorish novel from sixteenth century Spain: The Story of Abencerraje and the Lovely Jarifa. Abencerraje, hopelessly in love with Jarifa, recounts his moods in the absence of his beloved. The phrase I’ve excerpted: “Desperation tires until it becomes true, and hope until its desire is realized,” is the literary equivalent of the millennial nostalgia that the Diaspora Jew feels against the absence of the Promised Land. Gilad Atzmon has done nothing more than apply common sense in order to arrive at a surprising conclusion: if every human being knows that once any kind of desire is fulfilled, the prior anxiety over the unfulfilled desire vanishes, it’s logical to deduce that when Zionism made it possible to realize the old collective dream of the Diaspora by creating the State of Israel from scratch, the Israelis – who by being born there do not possess the desire, but are rather, citizens with passports for a country – have nothing to yearn for: the dream has become reality. This means then, a rupture between the Diaspora Jews, who continue being Zionists, because the desire to return to Zion remains in their unconscious, and the Jews born in Israel, who are already just Israelis, since they live in Zion. The interaction between those who desire and those who have ceased to be desirous is what Atzmon describes as contemporary Jewish experience.

From the standpoint of psychological reasoning, the hypothesis seems brilliant to me. Another very different thing is that the not very large body of authors reflecting on Zionism and its consequences has come to accept it. The mere fact of affirming that Israelis are not Zionists supposes a paradigm shift so transcendental that many will refuse to adopt it as a premise. It’s still too early to put the idea into practice, if it manages to be accepted, and I’m referring specifically to the famous Leninist concept: “What is to be done?” What tactics should militant anti-Zionists use who want to do away once and for all with Israel’s apartheid and the slow genocide being practiced against the Palestinians by a “state only for Jews”? Will it be necessary to design two separate strategies of struggle, one for those who still idealize Israel from afar, and another for those who want to escape from the hell it has become? Atzmon doesn’t say in this essay, but I have no doubt that he’ll continue reflecting and in the near future the results of his thinking will assist us.

Translated from the Spanish by Machetera
Manuel Talens and Machetera are members of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity.

On May 16^th Gilad Atzmon presented his 'Primacy of the Ear' talk at Librairie Résistances in Paris. The room was filled to capacity with enthusiast Palestinian solidarity activists.

The following is a short video clip of Atzmon's performance together with the astonishing Dhafer Youssef. The video includes as well part of Atzmon's talk where he reflects on global Zionism and its impact on contemporary world affairs and the situation in Palestine in particular.