Without questioning the intellectual validity and the theoretical substance of the postcolonial spectrum of thought, it is clear that some contemporary leading trends within this realm of studies emphasize the role of ‘White male’ and the ‘phallus’ as being at the core of contemporary Western society’s malaise. So the next question is almost inevitable: Where does it leave the ‘White male’? Or more anecdotally, am I, a person who happens to be wrapped in pale skin and is also attached to a white phallic organ, do I bear responsibility for centuries of European genocides? Would my responsibility lessen once I decide to chop my male organ off? Am I, or any other White male, left with any authentic ethical role? Or are we biologically doomed to be the epitome of every wrongdoing of the Western society for generations? The astute postcolonial theorist may suggest that ‘Masculinity’, ‘Whiteness’ and the ‘Phallus’ are mere symbolic representations rather than ‘things in themselves’.

Some postcolonial and feminist theoreticians would argue that imperialism, like patriarchy is, after all, a ‘phallo-centric’, ‘supremacist’, ‘White’ ideology that subjugates and dominates its subjects. This is an interesting and even intriguing statement, yet I am not so sure that it is valid or at all relevant to our understanding of Zionism and the crimes committed by the Jewish state. Zionism and Israel are clearly supremacist ideologies, yet is AIPAC’s push for a war against Iran ‘phallo-centric’? Is the Zionist appetite for Palestinian land ‘patriarchal’, or inspired by any form of ‘phallic’ enthusiasm or even ‘Whiteness’? Is the ‘War against Terror’ that left about one and a half million fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘phallicly’ orientated or is it the White male again?

Let’s face it, Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish Lobbying are not particularly ‘phallo-centric’ or ‘patriarchal’. They also have little to do with ‘Whiteness’. Zionism, and Israel are actually primarily ‘Judeo-centric’ to the bone. They are racially driven and fuelled by a particular supremacist culture that is inspired by some aspects of Talmudic Goy hating and some sporadic (and false) Old Testament (false) interpretations. But this is exactly the verdict the postcolonial scholar attempts to prevent us from reaching. It is especially embarrassing because Israelis and Zionists openly draw their inspiration and expansionist enthusiasm from Jewish culture and texts, which they interpret in a very particular self-serving manner.

In spite of the fact that this discourse, in its current form, is pretty much, irrelevant to our understanding of Zionism and Israel, this postcolonial discourse is still, very popular amongst some anti Zionists and in particular, Jewish anti Zionists. The reason is pretty simple; it is effective in diverting attention from the real issues; it disguises the magnitude of Jewish power, Jewish politics, the inherent ‘Jewish’ nature of the ‘Jewish State’ and Jewish intellectual hegemony within the west and the Left in particular. Within the realm of the postcolonial discourse we are not even allowed to mention the ‘J word’, let alone criticise Jewish lobbying or Jewish power structures.

In fact, the postcolonial discourse, allows its acolytes to talk endlessly and passionately about Israel and Zionism without saying anything meaningful. It allows the Left to refer to Zionism as ‘settler colonialism’ in spite of the embarrassing fact that no one actually knows where or what exactly is the Jewish ‘mother state’ is.¹ Postcolonial scholars also encourage us to refer to Israel as an Apartheid state in spite of the fact that Apartheid is a racially driven system of exploitation of the indigenous. The Postcolonial enthusiast would obviously turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel is not interested in exploitation of the Palestinians. It prefers to see them gone. Hence, since it aims to get rid of the indigenous, Israel should be realised as an avid follower of the Lebensraum (Living-space) philosophy. From that perspective at least, Israel should be equated with Nazi Germany rather than with South Africa.

The postcolonial discourse, in its current form, allows its anti Zionist enthusiasts to spin endlessly. They can refer to Israel and Zionism without actually disturbing, hurting or even touching Israelis, Zionists and Jewish political structures. The postcolonial theorist is basically engaged in an attack on an imaginary phantasmic construction that has zero relevance to Zionist ideology or Israeli politics whatsoever. It is basically an advanced form of an intellectual onanism.

Like Rabbinical Judaism and Stalinism, the postcolonial discourse is extremely intolerant towards dissent and criticism. It surrounds itself with a defense wall, operates as an intellectual ghetto. In fact, it also invented political correctness just to police and curtail, by means of self-censorship, any freedom of expression.

Arab and Palestinian Postcolonial Scholarship

One of the most influential postcolonial thinkers was Palestinian- American literary theorist Edward Said. Said’s polemic, Orientalism (1979) was a deeply profound attempt to grasp the West’s vision of the Orient, the colony and Islam. The term Orientalism, as coined by Said, covers three interrelated meanings. First, it names the academic study of the Orient. Second, it is a form of deliberation that constitutes the Arab as the ‘other’. Third, it is the structures that maintain Western domination over the Orient.

Being an outstandingly creative intellect, Said engaged in a vast examination of a multitude of Orientalist discourse. His writings refer to political and historical texts as well as literature and media. Said obviously realised the immense importance of cultural criticism and cultural studies.

Confusingly, some of Edward Said’s Palestinian and Arab successors seem to oppose the very field of study Said championed. For example, as much as Said was immersed in deep cultural examination and discourse analysis, Palestinian activist and academic Ali Abunimah recently claimed the following. “We should be very clear in condemning explanations which try to blame a culture or a religion for a political situation.“ Abunimah basically believes that culture doesn’t explain ‘anything at all’. It seems to me that Abunimah, who often integrates the term ‘Orientalism’ into his political statements and tweets, is apparently unfamiliar with the intellectual core of Edward Said’s thought and methodology.

Ali Abunimah is not happy at all with my reading of the conflict. This is understandable and totally legitimate, and furthermore, he is not alone. Other exiled Palestinians seem also to be very concerned. Their outrage at my argument that Israel is not a European-style colonial state implies that they fear the end to a discourse in which they have invested so much. Some of those Palestinians were very happy to add their names to the list of book burners who demanded my disavowal. This was indeed a very sad turn – futile, yet, at the same time both revealing and predictable. Though those Arab and Palestinian scholars criticized my work for being ‘racist’ without providing a single racist comment by me, it was disappointing to discover that, it was in fact their writing that was actually saturated with biological determinist comments and peppered with blunt racism.

Recently we came across a video of cultural BDS leader Omar Barghouti exploring some ‘postcolonial’ ideas. He for instance, insisted that “the white race is the most violent in the history of mankind.” This is an outrageous sweeping generalization especially since Barghouti surely knows that Zionism is Judeo-centric and has very little to do with Whiteness. It is not the degree of ‘Whiteness’ that constitutes the racist element within the Israeli legal system, it is rather the ‘degree of Jewishness’ that makes an Arab Jew privileged in comparison to a Palestinian with a very similar skin colour. Omar Barghouti is studying in a ‘Zionist’ Tel Aviv university (while asking the rest of us to boycott the same university). Seemingly, he has internalised the Zionist academic postcolonial jargon and has integrated and implemented some biological determinist and racist ideas into his pro-Palestinian political thinking.

And Omar Barghouti is not alone. Assad Abu Khalil, AKA The Angry Arab, is another postcolonial enthusiast who also engages in a similar racially driven approach. In his blog post “White Man and Paul Newman,” Angry AbuKhalil writes “the White Man is not a racial category–or it is not merely a racial category but also a political and epistemological category.” Not only does Angry Arab agree that the ‘White Man’ is partially a racial category, he even goes as far as linking skin colour with a political stand and even epistemology.²

Of course, I realise that being an Arab academic in a Zionised American or British university is a tough mission. I guess that for some time the postcolonial discourse was the only possible template that allowed a criticism of Israel and Zionism. But the time is ripe to move on. We’d better now call a spade a spade. It is time to call Israel what it is, namely “the Jewish State.” The time has come to ask what the Jewish State is all about and what is the true meaning of the Jewish symbols that decorate Israeli tanks and airplanes? The time has come for us to grasp that the Jewish Lobby is a primary threat to world peace.

But can we do it all while being thought-policed by the rigid boundaries of the postcolonial realm? Can we talk about Jewish identity politics while some prominent Palestinians activists attempt – to block any discussion on Jewish culture & power? My answer is yes we can, and we’d better make every possible effort to liberate our discourse from the Judeo-centric postcolonial grip.

Whiteness, the Jew, and the Queer

In the last few weeks I have wondered why Omar Barghouti attacks the ‘White race’? Is it really necessary? Couldn’t he just refer to the ‘West’, America, Orientalism or the ‘British Empire’? Why does Angry Arab fight the White man? Is it really an elementary political category? Does the introduction of racial categories and biological determinism serve the Palestinian cause or Arab liberation? I decided to jump into the water and immersed myself in some contemporary texts about whiteness and postcolonial theory. I thought that it may help me to understand the emergence of such thoughts.

Following the recommendation of my friend and musical partner Sarah Gillespie, one of the first texts I picked was Richard Dyer’s White. Dyer is a respected film scholar and a leading writer on the topic. It didn’t take more than five pages before I stumbled upon a very interesting passage that opened my eyes. In the next few lines Dyer speaks about his childhood friendship with a Jewish pal and the impact it had on him.

The key figure here was a Jewish boy at school, whom I’ll call Danny Marker. I used to visit him and his family in Golders Green, a Jewish neighbourhood of London. I knew by then that I was a homosexual and I envied Danny and his family-they too were an oppressed minority, whom, like queers, you could not always spot; but, unlike us, they had this wonderful, warm community and culture and the wrongfulness of their oppression was socially recognised. I now believe that there are intellectual and political problems with making and analogy between Jews and queers, between ethnic and sexual discrimination, but I am trying to say how it felt then. I envied Danny’s ethnicity and wanted to be part of it, indeed, felt at home with it.³

In The Wandering Who, I wrote extensively about the clear ideological and theoretical continuum between Zionism and other marginal thoughts. I explored the deep ideological similarity between Queer theory and the Jewish national aspiration. On the one hand we notice a legitimate and reasonable call against injustice – the Zionist and the Queer theorist demand to become ‘people like other people’ a call obviously understood and supported by many. But on the other hand, we also detect another forceful demand – to maintain and preserve uniqueness and differentiation. As one can imagine, the humanist call for equality can easily clash with the forceful self-centric, clannish demand for preservation (especially when celebrated on the expense of others).

However, Richard Dyer explores here another special affinity between the queer and the Jew. As a homosexual, he expresses a clear and innocent envy of his Jewish schoolmate’s social landscape. Dyer notices that in spite of being oppressed, the Jews have managed to form a “warm and wonderful community and culture.” Dyer’s feeling at home within the Jewish family nest may explain why Tel Aviv has become a Gay capital. It explains why some prominent Queer activists feel so strongly and positively about the Jewish State, Zionism, Jewish culture and Jewishness in general. But it also may explain why some Arab and exiled Palestinian secular academics, feel some affinity to the Jewish dominated anti Zionist postcolonial nest. Operating as an intellectual ghetto, it may also retain some Jewish characteristics, it is probably a ‘warm community’ as Dyer describes it. It may even be that some Palestinian postcolonial secular academics would feel more comfortable in Tel Aviv University than in Al-Azhar University in Gaza.

I obviously understand it, and I am far from being judgmental. But am I naïve to expect Palestinian activists and intellectuals to ensure that the, ‘wrongfulness of Palestinian oppression’ be widely and ‘socially recognised’ by the masses, rather than by a few postcolonial Jewish Anti Zionists? It is time for our discourse to leave the ghetto.

I guess that in order to achieve such a goal, we must transcend the decaying postcolonial discourse or else completely revise it. We must drift away from any form of marginal ideology. We must be able to deconstruct Jewish texts and Jewish cultural discourse with the same vigor that Edward Said deconstructed the European canon, whether it was Charles Dickens or Lord Balfour. We actually better locate the issue of Palestine at the forefront of the battle for a better world, humanity and humanism.

We should engage in an inclusive, open intellectual debate that welcomes all oppressed (queers, gays, Arabs, Muslims, people of colour and so on) and oppressors too. At the end of the day, with 50 million Americans living in deep poverty watching 30,000 drones fly over their heads, Gaza is now in Detroit, Newark, and Philadelphia. Our solidarity with Palestine can now become a true force of genuine empathy. We don’t now just put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, we actually wear them. We all strive for the same liberty. We are one.

1. If Israel is the Jewish ‘Settler State’ we better be informed at last where is the Jewish ‘mother state’ for colonialism is defined by a clear material, cultural and spiritual exchange between a mother and a settler states.
2. It would be wrong not to mention professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University. Following his Mentor Edward Said, Massad also writes about the role of colonialism, its structure, its impact and the scars it left behind. Like Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad also refers occasionally to skin colour. Yet, unlike Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad seems to be far more careful and astute. Rather than falling into the banal biological determinist trap, he seems to critically refer and examine the role of skin colour from structural, social, cultural and political perspectives.
3. White, Richard Dyer, p. 5.

Günter Grass, Germany’s most famous living author and the 1999 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, sparked outrage in Germany on Wednesday with the publication of a poem, “What must be said,” in which he sharply criticizes Israel’s offensive approach towards Iran.

Once again, it is the artist rather than the politician, who tells the truth as it is. Once again it is the Artist rather than the academic who speaks out.

“Why did I wait until now at this advanced age and with the last bit of ink to say: The nuclear power Israel is endangering a world peace that is already fragile?” wrote Grass.

In the poem, published by Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung and other European dailies on Wednesday, Grass also calls for an

unhindered and permanent monitoring of Israel’s nuclear potential and Iran’s nuclear facility through an international entity that the government of both countries would approve.

Israel and some German Jewish prominent voices were quick to react. The Israeli Embassy in Berlin issued a statement offering its own version of ‘What must be said.’

“What must be said is that it is a European tradition to accuse the Jews before the Passover festival of ritual murder,” the statements reads.

Pretty outrageous, don’t you think? In the open Israel together with its supportive Jewish lobbies (AIPAC, AJC) are pushing for a new global conflict. Yet, shamelessly the embassy defies criticism tossing in the air the old blood libel. The appropriate timely question here is why Israel and AIPAC are pushing for a world war and a potential nuclear conflict just before Passover? Can they just wait for another Yom Kippur (atonement day)?

The Israeli Embassy continues, “in the past, it was Christian children whose blood the Jews allegedly used to make their unleavened bread, but today it is the Iranian people that the Jewish state allegedly wants to annihilate.”

Isn’t it really the case? Every military expert suggests that Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. If anything Grass tries like others, including your truly, to prevent Israel from celebrating its lethal symptoms once again.

The Israeli embassy noticed though that “Israel is the only state in the world whose right to exist is openly doubted.”

Correct [The "only" state? This is debatable. -- DV Ed.], and so it should be. Israel is a racist, expansionist state, it doesn’t have room amongst nations.

The Central Council of Jews in Germany also called the poem an “aggressive pamphlet of agitation.” I wonder, is it really aggressive to try and restrain an aggressor?

The German newspaper Die Welt, which apparently obtained an advance copy of Grass’ poem, published a response by rabid Zionist Henryk Broder, the country’s most prominent Jewish writer. “Grass always had a problem with Jews, but it has never articulated it as clearly as he has in this poem.” Broder said “Grass has always had a tendency toward megalomania, but this time he is completely nuts.” I would expect Germany’s leading Jewish writer to come with something slightly more astute.

Border however may be correct when he notes that Grass is “haunted by guilt and shame and also driven by the desire to settle history, he is now attempting to disarm the ’cause of the recognizable threat.’”

Wednesday’s poem is not the first time Grass has come out with critical views of Israel. In a 2001 interview with Spiegel Online, he offered his own solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Israel doesn’t just need to clear out of the occupied areas,” he said at the time. “The appropriation of Palestinian territory and its Israeli settlements are also a criminal activity. That not only needs to be stopped — it also needs to be reversed. Otherwise there will be no peace.”

Broder contends that such a statement is “no less than a demand for Israel to not just cede Nablus and Hebron, but also Tel Aviv and Haifa.” He continues, “Grass does not differentiated between the ‘occupied areas’ of 1948 and 1967.” Needless to say that from an ethical perspective Grass is correct; there is no difference between 1948 and 1967. The Jewish State located itself on historic Palestine on the expense of the Palestinian people. I guess that Grass understood already in 2001 that the Jews-only State must be transformed into a ‘State of its Citizens’. Israel should embrace the true notion of peace, universalism and inclusiveness. But I guess that we shouldn’t hold our breath for it is not going to happen soon.

“I once belonged to a wonderful religion. I belonged to a religion that allows those of us who believe in it to feel that we are the greatest people in the world—and feel sorry for ourselves at the same time,” says young Jesse. However, it seems that it didn’t take too long before Jesse found out for himself that what he was part of was neither flattering or glorious.

Jewish tribal cultural indoctrination is a full-on, comprehensive process. “Although I was fortunate enough to have parents who did not try to force me into any one set of beliefs, being Jewish was in no way possible to escape growing up”, says Jesse. “It was constantly reinforced at every holiday, every service, and every encounter with the rest of my relatives.”

Inherent to the culture and its maintenance is self-love. “I was forever reminded how intelligent my family was, how important it was to remember where we had come from, and to be proud of all the suffering our people had overcome in order to finally achieve their dream in the perfect society of Israel.”

Jewish ideological and cultural ‘programming’ is rather sophisticated. It is a unique dynamic pattern practiced in both a collective and an individual way. But those who carry the message aren’t themselves fully aware of their role within the tribal ideology they aim to maintain.

Of course Jews hold many different, and even contradictory, political beliefs. But however diverse their views may be somehow, those who are identified as Jews politically always unite against any attempt to criticise the cultural and ideological foundation of their tribal bond. Young Jesse is clearly aware of this. On the surface, it was the crimes against the Palestinians that provoked his ethical sense. “I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. ‘Genocide’ almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms.”

One of the most sophisticated tribal aspects of Jewish culture maintenance is the gradual manner in which criticism is silenced. “Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.” This common Hasbara argument on the surface sounds reasonable but it ignores the fact that in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there is a clear distinction between the aggressor and the victim. The Israelis are the ethnic cleansers and the occupiers. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are the expelled, the racially discriminated, the abused, deprived, locked behind walls and barbed wire in open air jails and, in some cases, even starved.

But Jesse seems to be made of the stuff of honesty. Unlike some of the Jewish leftists who presents a pseudo-moral argument only to gain credibility so that he/she can then vet the discourse, young Jesse presses on, stripping himself of any trace of choseness and exceptionalism. “It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought. “We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right.”

This “We need to defend our race,” is a common excuse Jewish activists use amongst themselves. Although Jews do not form a race, Jewish identity politics is still overtly racist. In fact, any form of Jewish secular identity politics is racially driven and fuelled with racial exclusivity. This applies not only to pro Israeli Jews but unfortunately also to Jews-only ‘anti’ Zionist groups.

I guess it is obvious where Jesse is heading. He clearly sees an ideological continuum between the civil right movement in America and the Palestinian liberation struggle. In both struggles, there is clearly a racially driven oppressor and a victim collective — and Jesse draws the necessary conclusion, “I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion.”

Jesse has obviously identified the Jewish politics and culture of which he was a part, as a form of ‘racial supremacy.’ He never mentions Zionism, in fact, the word Zionism is not mentioned once in his sincere award-winning post. He simply speaks about his Jewish upbringing, the culture and the ideology.

Young Jesse has already grasped that an appeal to his Jewish friends is not going to lead anywhere. He writes, “I decided to make one last appeal to my religion… The next time I attended a service, there was an open question-and-answer session about any point of our religion… When I was finally given the chance to ask a question, I asked, ‘I want to support Israel. But how can I when it lets its army commit so many killings?’ I was met with a few angry glares from some of the older men, but the rabbi answered me. “It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?’ he said. ‘But there’s nothing we can do. It’s just a fact of life.’ I knew, of course, that the war was no simple matter and that we did not by any means commit murder for its own sake, but to portray our thousands of killings as a ‘fact of life’ was simply too much for me to accept.”

It seems that Jesse has the courage to redeem his soul. “I thanked him (the Rabbi) and walked out shortly afterward. I never went back…. If nothing else, I could at least try to free myself from the burden of being saddled with a belief I could not hold with a clear conscience.… I did not intend to go on being one of the Self-Chosen People, identifying myself as part of a group to which I did not belong.”

Surprisingly, Jesse wasn’t compelled to apologise for telling truth. He didn’t have to retract for telling things as they are. In fact he won the most prestigious humanist award for his essay. But I’m wondering how long will it take before ADL’s Abe Foxman and infamous Ethnic-cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz launch a campaign to destroy the awarding college.

Being a person who oscillates continuously between being an ‘ex-Jew’ and a ‘proud self hating Jew’, I embrace young Jesse and hold him close to my heart. My dear young twin brother, journeying from choseness is a life-struggle. From time to time you may feel lonely but you are never alone. Humanity and humanism are there at your side – for all time.

“If Israel apologises to the people of the Gaza genocide, we may reduce the attacks,” said Saudi Hacker OxOmar to Ynet in an interview via email. “I want to harm Israel in any way possible. Hitting Israel in the pocket is certainly where it hurts. “I’ll Make the Israeli authorities cry ” warned OxOmar who operates from Mexico.

OxOmar wasn’t very happy with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who called the Hacker’s attacks an act of “terrorism”. Ayalon also warned that hackers may have to bear the consequences. He obviously referred to Israeli vengeance. But OxOmar seems to be resilient, “If the Israeli authorities, and especially Danny Ayalon, apologise to me and the people in Gaza, I may reduce my attacks,” he said. “Ayalon has to apologise for threatening to kill me, and Israel should also apologise for the massacre in Sabra and Shatila.”

Needless to say that the Jewish State is pretty devastated by the Idea that a bunch of ‘indigenous Arabs’ are far more technologically advanced than its own chosen cyber pirates.

I guess that this Cyber attack on Israel is a clear warning to Britain and America. Every cyber tactic implemented against Israel could easily be employed against Britain, America or any other Western State or institution. If Israeli banks are vulnerable, there is no reason to suspect that HBSC or Lloyds are much safer.

Obama is not performing too well in the polls. He clearly needs the Jewish Lobby on his side. The American president ‘provided’ yesterday and the lobby was quick to react- “Israel has no better friend in the world today,” wrote the president of the National Council of Jewish Democrats, David Harris.

According to Ynet, hours before his UN General Assembly Address Obama sought to ensure that prospective Jewish voters pay close attention to his speech.

Three of Obama’s aides held a conference call with the president’s Jewish supporters and community leaders. The advisers, all Jewish themselves, asked the supporters to “spread the word” that Obama will give a pro-Israel speech which reflects his own genuine positions and implored them to pay close attention to the president’s UN address.

The three Jewish advisers “stressed that the Republicans intentionally distort Obama’s statements to portray him as an anti-Israel president, when in fact their arguments are baseless.”

If anyone was foolish enough to believe that America could ever be a broker for peace in the Middle East, the truth is now unavoidable. American political world is clearly hijacked by a foreign lobby that represents foreign interests. America cannot rescue itself. What we see in front of our eyes is basically a tragedy.

Greek tragedy depicts the downfall of a noble hero, usually through some combination of hubris, fate, and the will of the gods. The American tragedy contains the same elements. America has regarded itself as a ‘noble hero’ since its creation; ‘hubris’ is also far from being foreign to American culture. Americas’ fate has been written on the wall for more than a while. And what about the Gods, can you guess who the Gods are? I think that Obama and his party knew very well whom they were trying to appease last night. They know very well who their Gods are because they shamelessly mix with them at least once a year at AIPAC annual gathering.

However, Obama and his ‘advisers’ maybe mistaken here. Their ‘Gods’ are not stupid at all, they grasp what Obama is up to, Ben Horin wrote last night, they understand what ’2nd term’ means in terms of Israeli politics. They remember, for instance, that during the election campaign in 2000, George Bush promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but once re-elected he was the man who pushed Sharon to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. They remember that the same George Bush was also the president who sided with Abu Mazen, and declared that negotiations with the Palestinians should be based on 49 armistice lines.

If Obama thinks that the ‘Gods’ are now beside him, he is deluded.

Obama made a grave personal mistake yesterday. But it is Americans, Israelis and Palestinians that will pay the price. What we see here is a classic tragedy, for America doesn’t possess the political power to save itself from itself.

The only question you may want to ask yourself at this stage is how long will it take for America to emancipate itself from its ‘Gods’.

Israelis are unhappy with the ‘Israeli impersonal oppressive reality’. But for some reason, they fail to grasp where the real problem is. They complain about the system but they are yet to admit or even realise what their ‘system’ is all about.

Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ and as such, it regards itself as the state of the ‘chosen’. The Israeli system is fuelled by ‘choseness’  because ‘choseness’ is the true pragmatic meaning of the Jewish State and Zionism. If Israel wants to ‘change its system’ it must first drift away from tribalism, chauvinism and supremacy. It may as well be possible but once it happens, Israel wouldn’t be the Jewish State anymore.

I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them.

– Baruch Spinoza

Daniel Cohen (fictitious name) is deeply admired by many. He is a humanist, an anti Zionist and he is also a man of great integrity. A week ago, Daniel decided to challenge my views, and launched a courageous debate. Being a gracious man, he might have hoped to open my eyes to some ‘categorical mistakes’ he believed I was making. For my part, I was very open to his criticism and engaged in the dialogue.

Daniel was not happy with the way the exchange has evolved. Though he circulated his comments and my interventions to his close Jewish friends, he made it clear that he wanted to stop the exchange at a certain stage. Daniel was very angry with me. He also made it clear that he did not want me to publish the exchange of views. As I always do in such cases, I suggested that together, we should edit the debate, but he refused. Respecting Daniel’s request for anonymity, I have now re-edited the text myself, concealing Daniel’s real name, removing all sections and biographical references that could reveal Daniel’s identity. Occasionally, I have re-phrased Daniel’s comments for purpose of continuity and clarity, but I have faithfully retained his meaning.*

Unlike Daniel, I believe that issues to do with Jewish history and Jewish ideology must be discussed openly and without fear.

Questions You Should Never Raise

Daniel Cohen: Dear Gilad, we certainly share many ideas and thoughts. We both oppose Zionism and Israeli policies, however, rather, too often, you fail to be careful enough with your formulations, and this gives room for some misunderstandings. You seem to challenge some issues to do with the Holocaust, and history in general. It seems to me as if, often enough, you raise questions to which various sufficient answers already exist.

Gilad Atzmon: I can already tell you, at this stage, that I have a slight problem with your approach. To start with, as a philosopher, I am far more interested in the art of asking questions. I leave the ‘answers’ to politicians. Moreover, the relationship between questions and answers is paradigmatically oriented. A sufficient ‘answer’ within one paradigm (or discourse) may as well be totally inadequate or irrelevant within another -a certain ‘answer’ within Aristotelian physics may well be within the realm of the inexpressible within a ‘Newtonian’ paradigm.

DC: If you ask, for instance, why were the Jews repeatedly hated in so many places along their history, as you do in some of your texts, you create room for anti-Semites who may say it is because they are intrinsically evil.

GA: To start with, as a thinking being full of curiosity, I do not take instructions from anti Semites or Zionists or Jewish anti Zionist campaigners. I instead follow my instincts and go along with my sincere ethically driven truth-seeking adventure. Also, I believe that the answer you attributed to anti Semites can be easily addressed. Jews cannot be ‘intrinsically evil’ because Jews do not form a racial or ethnic continuum. Any racial attribution to Jews is clearly wrong and silly.

DC: I actually do not agree with your approach. The appropriate answer to the above question is that in the Middle Ages Jews were barred from many professions except money trade and peddling, two professions which could easily arouse disdain and hate.

GA: Dear Daniel, with all due respect, such an answer is far from being sufficient. In Europe at least, Jews have been emancipated since the French Revolution. By the end of the 19th century most European Jews enjoyed equal rights. And yet, something went horribly wrong in the 1920s-30’s. Our duty then, is to understand, what was it? Why did it happen? Why do Jews encounter resentment all too often and in many different places?

I don’t know whether you are aware of it, but the reasoning you suggest here is very similar to the Early Zionist mantra. Borchov and Katznelson were also convinced that Diaspora conditions were responsible for ‘Jewish deformed cultural identity’. They believed that on a land of their own, Jews would be able to re-invent themselves and become ‘people like other peoples’.

As you and I agree, Zionism is a complete disaster. The Jews are hated in the Middle East. And as Shahid Alam suggests, Zionism did not really solve the Jewish question; it only re-located it in a new place (Zion).

The answer to the question is actually very simple; as long as Jews operate politically, culturally and socially within exclusive racially oriented cells, be it Israel, Zionism, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist networks or even ‘Jews only’ football clubs , they will encounter problems.

But let us go back to issues of whether some ‘questions that should never be raised’. For me, to be in the world is to live through changes, to allow meaning to be in flux and to let ourselves be transformed accordingly. I could never accept the Idea that some questions have sufficient and firm answers. In fact, I oppose any form of dogmatism.

DC: But, in your text ‘Truth, History & Integrity’ you go as far as asking “why Auschwitz’s (Jewish) prisoners didn’t wait for the Red Army ?” Do you think that this is an appropriate question to ask?

GA: Sorry Daniel. I have to stop you there, I believe that in order to address this quote, I must first re-locate my words in the right order, and within the appropriate context. In my paper ‘Truth, History & Integrity,’ I quote Israeli Holocaust historian Israel Gutman, who suggests that Auschwitz prisoners (or at least some of them) joined the Death March voluntarily (“I then decided to join [the march] with all the other inmates and to share their fate”).¹ Following Gutman’s quote, I then presented the following inference:

“If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?”

What we see above is a clear inference (rather than a mere question). It seems to me that it is there to suggest that further research is needed. As opposed to the historian who searches for a narrative, as a philosopher, I am there to question what the word ‘narrative’ actually stands for, or in Kantian terms — what are the conditions of the possibility of a historical narrative. In my relevant paper, I do not attempt to provide an answer — I am not an historian. My primary issue is concerned with the freedom to wander/wonder, and to raise possible dilemmas without being terrorised by the ‘Holocaust censorship police’ or any other form of thought dictatorship.

DC: But, can’t you see that with such a manner of behaviour you provide Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites with ammunition? They can so easily misuse your words.

GA: Dear Daniel, I do understand your concern, but with all due respect, I have been writing for some years now, and, as far as I am aware, anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers do not seem to misuse my words. I have been quoted by some so-called anti Semites, some of whom liked me, whilst others hated me, but they appear to quote my ideas within context and seem to be faithful to the original meaning and intention of my writing.

But — let me tell you, I have seen many Zionists and ‘anti’ Zionists systematically misquoting me, misrepresenting me, forging my statements, and taking my words out of context, all willfully done to create the most awful impression of my work.

DC: But let’s return to your earlier statement — can’t you see that the inference you are making here is that Auschwitz was not a death factory, which to me, comes near to denial.

GA: No, I do not agree with such an interpretation of my words. In my article, you will notice that I refrain from suggesting any answer. I would argue instead that raising the right questions is far more important than repeating the ‘right’ answers. The same applies to the 911 Truth Movement. Whether someone manages to come up with the right explanation of this peculiar chain of events is one issue, the fact that so many people suspect and challenge the official narrative is clearly a revelation or at least very positive sign. Furthermore, I also find the notion of ‘denial’ rather problematic. Instead of denial, I would prefer to emphasise the fundamental and ethically grounded right to revise, re-visit and re-view. I believe that to be tolerant is to agree not to agree, and also to respect others when we don’t agree.

Jews, Judaism, and Jewishness

DC: I want to say that I am also troubled with your attitude towards Judaism and Jewish religion.

GA: Actually, you will notice when you read my work that I tend to avoid dealing with the Judaism (the religion), and I also avoid discussing Jewish people as an ethnic or racial group — instead, I prefer to elaborate on ‘Jewishness’, Jewish ideology and Jewish political identity.

DC: But for me, there is no such a thing as ‘Jewishness’ — there is only Zionist Ideology. I do not accept at all the notion of Jewish ideology or Jewish political identity. I am only willing to deal with the Zionist political identity.

GA: I am absolutely fine with that – I am familiar with, and respect your views, which are common amongst Jewish anti Zionists. Unfortunately, my way of ‘perceiving the universe’ is somewhat more complex and I am far from being proud of what I see. It seems to me that you are missing a crucial aspect of the whole debate – You do not seem to realise that Zionism is just part of the problem. The notion of Zionism no longer actually means very much to Israelis anymore. Hence it falls short of explaining Israeli collective barbarism. Once Israel was founded, the Zionist dream had fulfilled itself. Zionism is now largely a Jewish Diaspora discourse, and therefore, falls short of explaining Israeli politics and Israeli brutality in particular.

Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’, and it drops bombs on innocent civilians from airplanes that are clearly and unambiguously decorated with Jewish symbols. Israel commits horrendous crimes—‘in the name of the

Jewish people’. In ‘my universe’ then, I am more than entitled to ask what Jewishness stands for, and I repeat, that Zionism is just one manifestation of Jewishness.

The next stage is surely to define what Jewishness is all about.

I say again, that in my writing I differentiate between ‘Jews’ –the people, Judaism–the religion, and Jewishness the ideology. I avoid the first two categories almost entirely, and I focus on Jewish ideology. I admit that such an approach issue can lead occasionally to some misinterpretations – but as far as I am able, I do try to be clear about it, as much as I can.

I do not consider the Jews to be a race, and yet it is obvious that ‘Jewishness’ clearly involves an ethno centric and racially supremacist, exclusivist point of view that is based on a sense of Jewish ‘chosen-ness’. Zionism too, is a clear manifestation of such an ideology. But, tragically enough, the Jewish Left happens to be of a very similar tendency. Like Zionists, the Jewish Left are also interested in notions of being ‘racially’ or ethnically exclusive. For instance, Hamed from Gaza would not be able to settle in Tel Aviv — but surprisingly enough, he may also find it very problematic to join IJV (independent Jewish voice) or ‘Jews for peace in Palestine’.

DC: But you have to bear in mind that in sharp contrast with the multifaceted religion of Judaism, Zionism is completely monolithic in that it can be defined as having just one single goal: maximum surface in Palestine (for the Jews) with the minimum number of Palestinians on it.

GA: I am sorry but here again, I find myself in a slight disagreement with you. Zionism and political Zionism are dynamic movements, and subject to constant metamorphic changes. They change their goal all the time. It is even very difficult to define what is the ‘exact’ role of Zionism after Israel has been founded. I think that your definition of Zionism is basically a very good description of Israeli policy (“maximum of surface in Palestine with the minimum number of Palestinians on it”). However, and I re-emphasise, Zionism should now be considered to be largely a Diaspora discourse. It means very little if anything at all to the Israelis.

Zionists cannot even decide whether they want to schlep world Jewry to Zion, or to leave them in the Galut (Diaspora) so they can campaign for Israel forever.

DC: But wouldn’t you agree that Zionism is chauvinistic, racist, expansionist and colonialist? It is imperative to be very careful in distinguishing between the words Judaism and Zionism.

GA: I largely agree with the above. However, in my work I never tie the two together. Yet, I do allow myself to argue that if Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ we must surely be entitled to wonder what Jewishness stands for.

Holocaust religion vs. Judaism

DC: Gilad, you write about Holocaust religion. Yet again, in very sharp contrast to Holocaust religion, Judaism has taught the world how to differ in opinion and how to debate. Judaism is non-dogmatic and since the destruction of the second Temple everyone over 13 years of age is entitled to take part in debate and discussion, provided he has good arguments.

GA: I am not so sure that I agree with you here. In theory you may be right, that on the face of it, the Talmud is indeed part of an open debate and a search for conclusive and rational ruling. However, there is another aspect to Rabbinical thinking, and that is the notion of Herem (ex-communication) to give just one example. Rabbinical Judaism is very dogmatic and extremely intolerant towards dissidence. The cases of Spinoza ex communication and the brutality towards Uriel Da Costa seem to be to be crucial for an understanding of Judaism. I want to remind you that Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated following a Halacha ruling (Din Rodef).

DC: However, Holocaust religion is the opposite. It is very dogmatic and forbids practically any discussion.

GA: I obviously agree with you here, but given your opinion here, then I would expect you to support me asking all those earlier questions that to me, appear to be totally legitimate.

DC: But surely you agree that you cannot debate with people who deny the Holocaust as a historical fact. And why should one raise questions where answers are already known to all?

GA: Dear Daniel, I would prefer to engage in a preliminary discussion here. I think we should be careful in the way we use the word ‘fact’. A given Historical chapter is not solely a fact but a narrative composed of many ingredients such as: facts, personal testimonies, prose, culture, emotional contents and so on. The narrative is the mortar that bonds all the different ingredients by means of reasoning. It allocates events with meaning and direction. This applies to the Napoleonic wars as much as it does to the Holocaust, or indeed, any other historical chapter. The Holocaust should not be regarded solely as a rigid set of ‘facts’ but rather as a very complicated historical narrative, a compound of very many things including facts (of course). I believe that once we allow the Holocaust to be treated as a historical narrative rather than a religion or a ‘fact’, none of us would be under the impression that every doubt may endanger the entire historical narrative or even our existence.² For me, openness and integrity when we study historical events is far more important than any ideology or a given party line.

DC: I could not disagree more. History is indeed very complex but past historical research has given us quite a good picture and understanding of what actually happened in Europe between 1933-1945.

GA: Daniel, you are a very educated man, would you allow yourself to say the same thing about science? Would you dare saying “Chemistry has given us quite a good picture of what is happening in the world, so we may put an end to our research right here”? I don’t think so. And this is where integrity comes into the picture.

DC: But , surely you see that to reduce the Holocaust into a narrative or even a number of narratives is a personal insult to every Jew.

GA: OK I can see where is the problem here. In fact, I do not ‘reduce the holocaust into a narrative’, because every historical chapter is a narrative. The Nakba is a narrative, Zionism is a narrative, and the Napoleonic Wars is a narrative. Narrative is not a secondary quality. Narrative is the attempt to string (factual) events into a story with a direction and reason. The narrative furnishes the fact with sense. The Narrative is actually a dynamic notion. It allows us to shape and revise our vision of the past as we proceed in time. The Nakba, for instance, was hardly discussed in Western media until recently. Do you know why? Because we are now understanding the 1948 Zionist crime through our current notion of Israeli brutality. This is the true meaning of historical thinking; we move forward and backward. This is the deep meaning of the narrative and this is also the meaning of temporality-‘to be in time’. We are subject to constant changes.

The past becomes a meaningful event once it reflects on our present and future. The past becomes a vivid form of knowledge when it conveys a prospect of a better future, when it becomes as elastic as the now and ‘things to come’. In order to achieve such a goal we must allow ourselves to visit, re-visit and re-vise our visions of the past as we move along forward towards the unknown (future).

For me the meaning of temporality is the free bouncing between past and future, between the memory and the unknown. Any attempt to seal a chapter in our past, is for me, an attempt against humanity. I will never support such an approach and I understand that this is enough to make me a hate figure in the Jewish world. I can take it.

DC: I am very displeased with the result of our discussion. It has led nowhere, and I am saddened by it.

GA: I think that I understand your frustration. However, unlike you, I actually think that this was an amazing discussion especially because we do not agree. I myself have learned a lot.

1. “One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate.” (Israel Gutman (editor), People and Ashes, Auschwitz — Birkenau, Merhavia 1957).”
2. Many of those who identify themselves politically as Jews happen to believe that any doubt concerning the Jewish historical narrative is nothing less than questioning Jews’ ‘right to exist.’

But, amongst such shallow, sensationalist coverage, we are still missing the most important information. What is the demography of the riots? Who is leading it? Does it have any leaders? Is there an ideology behind it all? Why do they loot, what do they loot, and from whom do they loot? And most importantly, what is the meaning of it all?

The events we saw in the past week in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol and Manchester were possible signs of disintegration within British society. Some sectors within the society were clearly saying “we have had enough of it.” The truth is that these people we see rioting on our streets have been drifting away for quite some time, and no one has shown any concern, and now they are clearly not interested anymore in obedience to any notions of law and order. They do not see any great value in it. And the reason for that may be simple — there is simply not much in it for them.

What we see in Britain is not a political protest. It is not a battle with any coherent call for justice. Neither is it an outburst of mere racial hatred. It is none of those things — and yet, considered in its entirety, it comprises and manifests all of those factors at once. It is actually a rejection of the entire system. It is a clear manifestation and forceful expression of generations who have lost all hope in a society that does not convey any prospect of a future for them — what we now see in British cities is young people who are putting the current system on trial. It is a spontaneous eruption of a demand for recognition.

For the obvious reasons not many in Britain are willing to listen to the desperate and urgent message voiced by the deprived. But I think that we must try to understand what is going on here.

If you want to know why the British media fail to understand what is happening, the answer is fairly straightforward – though they are there to transmit an image and appearance of freedom of speech, liberty and the spirit of enlightenment, large parts of the British media are deeply embedded as an inherent part of a wider system which they serve and bolster.

As a nation, we claim to believe in democracy — though we often enough kill en masse in the name of freedom. Closer to the truth is the fact that we are submerged in a culture of self-love, and hence, we simply find it impossible to imagine that anyone within our proximity would dismiss our ‘greatness.’ And yet, here is the bad news — it is clearly all spinning out of control now — for far too long, we have been celebrating our ‘greatness’ at the expense of our underprivileged neighbours. Clearly, our next door neighbours do not buy into this notion of freedom and liberty, since they do not posses the means to celebrate such freedom: they are left out, excluded from the game.

When I was young, I used to wonder what I would do when I had to finally support myself, and indeed, there were many options to choose from: education was available for most of us; but more than anything else, there were jobs to be found, since there were many different industries. I knew, for instance, that I would always be able to at least settle in a factory job and support myself and my future family. But Britain doesn’t offer any of that anymore. There are no jobs. There are no industries, and from this year, higher education will not be a viable option for countless youngsters.

Tragically enough, our politicians do not appear to be at all concerned with these matters: British politicians, much like other Western politicians, seem impervious to the austere challenges faced by our youth, and the implications of all of these events for their future and their sense of hope. It has been convincingly argued that Western Liberal democracy is simply there to merely set parameters, and to create the appropriate conditions for big businesses. Such a state of affairs is certainly true in Britain. The democratic system in Britain can be more accurately described as a form of subtle, perfidious and devious political oppression that simply gives the appearance of the ‘true reflection of our own will’. It gives the false impression that ultimately, the current order is nothing but fulfillment and reflection of ‘our own personal choice.’

The truth of the matter is actually far simpler: the Western political system is there to maintain consumerism, and to keep big business going. Our civil freedom is reduced to a simple set of entitlements: we are free to consume, to buy, to spend, to purchase, to acquire, to lease, to hire, and to rent. And yet, there is a big problem here that will not go away, because as we move up the ladder of our consumer existence, more and more people are falling behind. As the more fortunate among us proceed upward, more and more youngsters are realising that they will never even be able to join the game.

On the one hand we are subject to a ‘dictatorship of commoditisation’; we are trained to identify with a set of gadgets and brands, and yet, on the other hand, an increasing number of the people around us are left out — they can barely afford to possess these objects of desire, and find themselves removed from the ‘identity game’. They become faceless, their existence denied, left to wander, ghost-like, wrapped in training suits in a society driven by ruthless hard capitalism and sheer greed.

Such a reading of the riots in London may well help us to grasp the fact that many looters were apparently happy to be pictured by the press as they were seen in the streets with their new possessions. For the first time, they also had a chance to join the Western ‘symbolic order’. They smile at the camera, showing off their entry card into our society. They don’t want to be faceless anymore — they insist to be seen.

Lamentably enough, British politicians seem to be very enthusiastic about ‘moral interventionism’ in other countries. But I believe that the time is ripe for Britain to be subjected to a true form of moral interventionism — an influx of spiritual ideas that would redeem us all from mammon-seeking and hard Capitalism. Yet it is increasingly clear that within the British political spectrum we will not find any such force that could lead to such a transformation, and that is indeed both a volatile and tragic situation.

Yet, in fact, what we are really seeing unfold in Israel (at least for the time being) is the total opposite of a ‘working class’ re-awakening. Indeed, some in Israel  are calling it the ‘Real Estate Protest,’ because basically those protesting want assets: they all wish to have property, a house of their own. They want to be landlords. They want the key, and they want it now. What we see in Tel Aviv has no similarity whatsoever to the struggles taking place in al-Tahrir or in Athens. At the most, the Israeli demonstrations mimic some manifestations of a struggle for justice or Socialist protest.

But that is where the similarities end.

Motti Ashkenazi (a legendary Israeli anti establishment figure) wrote in Ynet that “another Left is needed (in Israel), a Left that is primarily concerned with the poor of its country rather than with the plight of our neighbours.” In clear terms that cannot be interpreted otherwise: Motti Ashkenazi is exploring what he considers to be a necessary shift in Israeli ‘progressive’ thought, and what he appears to conclude is, forget about Palestine; let’s once and for all concentrate on  ‘us,’ the Jews.  Ashkenazi continues,  “we need another Left, a modest one. Instead of a vision for the entire Middle East, it had better present a vision of the State of Israel.”

Professor Nissim Calderon (a  lecturer in Hebrew literature ) also presented a similar line:  “We have erected a Left that has been focusing on the fight for peace, and peace only.   But there is a huge hole in our struggle- we failed to  struggle for social justice.”  Again  ‘Lefty’ Calderon refers to the social struggle within the Israeli Jewish population.

The mass protest in Israel is, in fact, the complete opposite of a genuine social revolution. Whilst it may present itself as a popular protest, in practice, it is a ‘populist festival’. According to reports from Israel, the leaders of the emerging protest are even reluctant to call for Netanyahu’s resignation.  The same applies to security matters, the occupation, the defence budget – the organizers wouldn’t touch these subjects in order not to split their rapidly growing support.

What we see in Israel is neither a socialist revolution nor is it a struggle for justice. It is actually a ‘bourgeoisie wannabe revolution’, and the Israelis took to the street because each of them wants to be a landlord, to own a property. They do not care much about politics, ethics, or social awareness, and neither do they seem to care much about the war crimes they are collectively complicit in.  Malnutrition in Gaza is really not their concern either. They seem to not care about anything much at all, except themselves becoming property owners.

But why do they want to own a property? Because they cannot really rent one. And why can’t they rent? It is obviously far too expensive.  But why is it too expensive? Because Israel is the ultimate  embodiment of a corrupted, hard speculative, capitalist society.  And I guess that this is the real untold story here. If Zionism was an attempt to solve ‘the Jewish Question,’ as the author Shahid Alam so insightfully explores, it has clearly failed since it has only managed to relocate ’the Jewish Question’ to a new place; i.e., Palestine.

Zionism promised to bring about a new productive and ethical Jew as opposed to what it defined as the ‘Jewish Diaspora speculative capitalist’. ¹ It clearly failed, and the truth of the matter is that in the Jewish State, Israeli Jews are now being  subjected to the symptoms of their own very problematic culture.²

Israel, that was supposed to be the state of the Jewish people, has become a  haven  for the richest  and most corrupted Jews from around the world: according to the Guardian, “out of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish.” During the last two decades, many Russian  oligarchs  have acquired  Israeli citizenship. They also secured their dirty money by investing in the Blue & White financial haven.  Wikileaks has revealed lately that “sources in the (Israeli) police estimate that Russian organised crime (Russian Mafia) has laundered as much as US $10 billion through Israeli holdings.”³

Mega-swindlers such as Bernie Madoff  have been channeling their money via Zionists and Israeli institutions for decades. Israel is also a leading trader in blood  diamonds. Far from being surprising, Israel is also the fourth biggest weapon dealer on the planet. Clearly, blood diamonds and guns are proving to be a great match. And it doesn’t stop there — every so often, Israel is caught engaging in organ trafficking and organ harvesting.

Increasingly, Israel seems to be nothing more than a vast money-laundering haven for Jewish oligarchs, swindlers, weapons dealers, organ traffickers, organised crime, and blood-diamond traders. But on top of that, rich Jews buy their holiday homes in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: there are reports that in Tel Aviv alone, thousands of holiday properties are empty all year round while native Israelis cannot find a roof.

The Israeli people are yet to understand their role within this horror show. The Israeli people are yet to grasp that they are nothing but the foot soldiers in this increasingly horrendous scenario. They do not even gather that their  state maintains  one of the world’s strongest armies to defend the assets of just a few of the wealthiest and most immoral Jews around.

I actually wonder whether Israelis can grasp it all. Yet the truth of the matter is that the leaders of the present Israeli ‘real estate revolution’ want to maintain the struggle as a material-seeking adventure, and they are clearly avoiding politics.  The driving sentiment and motivation here is obviously ‘give us the keys to our new homes and we clear the square.’

I guess that it is not surprising that within such an inherently greedy and racially-oriented society, the dissent that manifests will inevitably also be reduced to sheer banal materialism.

It seems the Israelis cannot rescue themselves from their own doomed fate because  they are blindly hijacked by their own destructive culture.  As myself and a few others have been predicting for a decade or more, Israeli  society is about to implode. It is really just a question of time.

1. Marxist Zionist Ber Borochov (1881-1917) argued that the class structure of European Jewry resembled an inverted ‘class-pyramid,’ a structure in which a relatively small number of Jews occupied roles within the ‘productive layers’ of society as workers, whilst a significant number were settled in capitalist and speculative trades such as banking.
2. In Haaretz Beni Ziper wrote, “I saw on television people shouting against the rich, or tycoons who control the country. Seemingly everyone thinks it’s exciting and daring and nobody reflects on  the chilling historical  equivalence with the Depression in Germany at the time of  Weimar Republic, when the ‘rich Jews who control us’ were targeted by everyone.”  Ziper is clever enough to notice a close and disturbing repetition in Jewish history. However, Ziper is also very critical of his countrymen.  “So I’m all for protests against the state, but in no way against people or groups of people, be they ‘rich’ or ‘(Jewish) Orthodox’ or even ‘settlers.’  Whoever gives privileges to the settlers in this country and it’s not that the settlers come and rob the cashier at gunpoint.” Whether we agree with Ziper or not, it is clear that he also admits that there is a similarity between the arguments voiced in Israel against the rich, and the German right wing’s anti-Semitic attitude towards Jews in the 1920’s-30’s.
3. For more information about global organised crime connections with Likud or other major Israeli political parties, follow this link

It (immigration) was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country (Britain). It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

– Melanie Phillips, as quoted by mass murderer, Anders Breivik, in his manifesto

Melanie Phillips, a Zionist and the author of Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within is not happy to be singled out by Andres Breivik in his 1500-page manuscript. Are they suggesting that “my writing provoked the mass murder of some 93 Norwegians?” she wonders righteously on her blog.

I guess that Phillips knows the answer, as much as she knows how to play with words. But I will use this opportunity to reiterate it for her, and for the rest of us – there certainly is a clear and strong resemblance between Breivik’s views and Phillips’ writing. The most obvious and immediate comparison is that both oppose Islamic immigration and multiculturalism of course, but it goes much further in that both identify the enemy within the ‘left political circuit’.

Breivik cites Phillips’ take on Labour’s immigration policy: “It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place.”

I should clearly state here that I do not think that Phillips provoked Breivik’s murderous inclination. I also believe that Phillips is fully entitled to express her thoughts and ideas. Yet, it is surely reasonable to suspect that Phillips, amongst others, might have contributed to inspiring Breivik, ideologically and spiritually.

Though Phillips writes on her blog that the “the forces of spite, malice and venom (within liberal media) have been unleashed in a terrifying display of irrationality,” it is obvious that it is completely rational to elaborate on the significant resemblance between Phillips’ and Breivik’s ideas.

Jewish media outlets in Israel and around the world are already aware of the deeply worrying fact that Breivik was inspired by right wing ideologies associated with Israel and Zionism. The JTA (The Global News Service Of The Jewish People) was quick to admit that numerous online postings, including Breivik’s, attack a “mishmash of anti-modern principles” that call for “the deportation of all Muslims from Europe as well as from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” Whether we like it or not, this ‘mishmash’ of ‘global Islamophobia’ and Israeli expansionism is the true face of contemporary Zionism and Israeli ideology.

And yet, there is a further central question that no one in the media has addressed yet: how is it that Melanie Phillips is getting away with openly promoting vile Islamophobia in our midst ? How is it that she and other Zionists prevail ,exactly where the EDL and the BNP fail? Why is Melanie Phillips a celebrity, whilst the BNP’s Nick Griffin is regarded as a vile racist, and a social outcast? Similarly, I find myself wondering what on earth the board of ‘progressive’ Guardian editors had in mind when they nominated the Zionist, pro-war and openly Islamohopbic Harry’s Place (also) as one of their favourite political blogs in 2005 – bear in mind that the Guardian‘s nomination was made at more or less the same time that the very same Harry’s Place blog won the ‘Annual Islamophobia Awards 2006,’ within the UK section of the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s ‘Annual Islamophobia Awards.’

I believe that the answer is devastating: within our so called, liberal democratic, allegedly ‘tolerant’ discourse – it is only right wing Jews who are entitled and allowed to spread xenophobia and hatred.

This is hardly surprising, because unlike contemporary Westerners, who seem to be more than confused by their colonial heritage and notions such as nationalism, racism, expansionism, biological determinism, religion, and self-loving, Israel and Zionism actually celebrate all of these symptoms, in the open. It is far from surprising then, to see Israeli flags and Jewish symbols popping up in many far right gatherings in the UK and in other European countries, because Israel, it seems, makes racism look kosher.

The shocking ideological resemblance of the thoughts and ideals of the fearsome mass murderer Breivik and mainstream Zionist advocates such Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and Harry’s Place should surely be a bright red alert for any sensible humanist. If we want to save our society from being dragged into a violence with no end, we must de-Zionise every possible aspect of our culture, media and political institutions.

The former category refers to writers and scholars who operate ‘within the box,’ accepting the restrictive measures of a given political and intellectual discourse. A thinker who operates within such a framework would initially identify the boundaries of the discourse, and then shape his or her ideas to fit in accordingly. The latter category refers to a far more challenging intellectual attempt: it includes those very few who operate within a post-political realm, those who defy the dictatorship of ‘political-correctness’, or any given ‘party-line’. It relates to those minds that think ‘out of the box’. And it is actually those who, like artists, plant the seeds of a possible conceptual and consciousness shift.

Sadly enough, the Western Palestinian solidarity discourse is far from being saturated by great intellectually and spiritually enlightening texts. For very many years the discourse has failed to address the most crucial questions regarding the local and global success of Zionism and Israel. For far too many years now, very few have dared to question the role of Jewish lobbying and the obvious continuum between the Jewish State, Jewish culture, Jewish religion, and ideology. Many years of Left hegemony at the heart of the Palestinian solidarity discourse is part of the problem, but this fact can be easily explained and even justified.

Zionism was born in the late 19th century, and like other emerging political movements at the time, it clearly conveyed some clear modernist¹ ideological symptoms. It was fuelled by the spirit of enlightenment. It presented a ‘rational’, secular, coherent and structural argument for Jewish self- determination and re-location.² It was driven by Eurocentric modernist pseudo-scientific, biological-determinist poeticism.³ Political Zionism found itself negotiating extensively with the leading empires at the time, most of whom were modernist by definition. It is only reasonable to assume that Zionism, manifesting itself as a modernist ideology, would be opposed by other 19th century anti-colonial modernist ideologies such as Marxism, ‘working class politics’, dialectical materialism, cosmopolitanism or Left thinking in general.

Yet, unlike the Left thinking that is in constant danger of structural and intellectual stagnation, Zionism has proved to be an inherently dynamic political movement: it has never stopped evolving and reinventing itself. The history of Zionism reveals a clear success story. Within just six decades, Zionism fulfilled its initial promise and founded the ‘Jews only’ State, at the expense of the Palestinians. It achieved its initial goal with the vast support of the world’s richest nations and leading superpowers. By 1967 it had managed to mobilise the entirety of world Jewry, and had transformed Jewish elites into a fierce fist of Jewish power. By then, Zionism had also changed its course — instead of schlepping Jews to Palestine, it gathered that Israel would actually benefit if Diaspora Jews stayed exactly where they were, and mounted pressure on their respective governments. By the end of the 20th century, Israel has managed to transform the English-speaking empire into an Israeli mission force. In 2003 Britain and the USA sent their sons and daughters to destroy Iraq, the last fierce enemy of Israel in the region. And yet, at the time there was hardly any critical theory that could shed light onto the immense power of Israel and its lobbies within the Anglo-American political world. There was no political theory that would explain the Anglo-American’s suicidal decision to fight illegal wars for Israel. There was also a noticeable and substantial lack of scholarly work that could throw some light on the sudden twist within Western elites against Islam and Muslims. Being modernist, Eurocentric and secularist, the Left found it hard, or even impossible to deal with the complexity of both Islam and Jewish ideology.

Yet, unlike Marxism, or any other form of progressive thinking, Zionism has never been truly committed to any structural modernist way of thought. Zionism is primarily loyal to Jews and what it perceives as their needs. The simple truth is that Zionism was very quick to drift away from modernism. The deeper truth is that Zionism has never been a genuinely modernist precept. Zionism is basically a Zelig populist-pragmatic outlook, which goes through rapid metamorphic shapes, incarnations and affiliations, just to fit into any given discourse that suits its purposes. Indeed, Zionism masked itself as a modernist political ideology when it was needed, and it was secularist and rational when these ideas were broadly appealing. But it also easily developed a religious-evangelist flavour — when the prospects of such transitions could be translated into power.

Zionism was also very quick to grasp postmodern conditions; it may even be argued that it has been the first to define these conditions. Zionism allows itself to be contradictory,⁴ irrational at times, tribal and emotional on other occasions. These facts alone may explain why the Left has failed to offer an adequate criticism of Zionism and Israel, for if Zionism and Israel belong to the realm of post modernity, then we could hardly expect any modernist scholarship to provide a comprehensive reading into the complexity of the situation.

In recent years we have seen a few successful attempts to break away from the traditional Left, materialist and modernist political analysis of Zionism and Israeli politics. James Petras, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were among the first to publish academic work on the immense and disastrous impact of the ‘Israeli Lobby’ (a politically correct wording for Jewish power). Two years ago Shahid Alam published Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilising Logic of Zionism, an incredibly courageous scholarly attempt to grasp the destructive role of Jewish power in America and beyond. Petras, Mearsheimer, Walt, and Alam operated out of the box: their criticism of Israel, Zionism and Jewish power was not restricted by a party-line or by any given political consensus or paradigm. Quite the opposite, their work broke away from their contemporaneous paradigms and brought into life a new discourse that now shapes itself into an extensive body of thought, as well as providing politically pragmatic applications.⁵ As one may expect, Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt were criticised by elements within the Left, and especially by prominent Jewish voices within the Left. But they prevailed. Wisdom and true intellectual insights cannot be contained. At the most, these voices can be silenced or suppressed for a short while but they always hit back with much greater rigour.

This week we saw the publication of Eric Walberg’s Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games (Clarity Press), a substantial addition to the aforementioned and precious ‘out of the box’ category.

The book sketches a fascinating historical journey that provides Walberg with the necessary means to unveil the unique particularity of the postmodern conditions we are subject to. Walberg provides us with an extensive expose of the depth of the Zionist penetration into Western thought and the destructive power of Israeli imperial wars.

In order to achieve his goal, Walberg sets an historical template. He identifies three crucial phases in the past and recent imperial affairs: Great Game I (GGI) refers to ‘classical imperialism’ with competing empires vying for territories and resources.

Great Game II (GGII) refers largely to the cold war and the alliance of formerly competing Western empires under US hegemony in an attempt to restrain communism and contain its influence.

Great Game III (GGIII) is where we are now–the postmodern phase. It starts roughly with the collapse of the Soviet block. It can be described broadly in Neo-conservative terms as American unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority. But such a definition would be misleading. In reality we encounter the total Israeli-fication of America and its elites. In practice what we see is America willingly lending its might to a miniature Jewish state.

GGIII is the victorious march of Israeli, Zionist, and Jewish power. Walberg’s analysis is there to explain the shameless reaction of American senators and congressmen to Netanyahu’s speech recently. It explains why America, once regarded as a leader of the free world, is now lending its destructive might to the miniature Jewish state. The frightening truth is that Israel is now an ‘Empire and-a-Half’ as Walberg calls it. It has, at its disposal, the world’s only superpower that fights its wars by proxy and provides for its needs. Devastatingly enough, America doesn’t find within itself the power to liberate itself. The world’s single super power’s elite is practically held hostage by a miniature state and its supportive lobbies.

Like other significantly illuminating texts, Walberg provides the reader with the fundamental means to intercept the Zion-ised reality in which we live. Those who read the book may be able to grasp the current Murdoch affair and the role of his media empire within the context of global Zionism. Just less than a year ago, the media magnate accepted the ADL Award. In 2003 Murdoch’s media network rallied in support of the ‘War Against Terror’. Murdoch should have been stopped by the British Government or the Parliament, but as it seems, all recent British Governments and parties have been supported heavily by the Israeli Lobby in Britain. When this country was taken into an illegal war in Iraq, Lord cashpoint Levy was Tony Blair’s ‘number one’ fundraiser.

Walberg produces a thorough reading of the various elements that made Israel into an ‘Empire and-a-Half’. Fearlessly he looks into Judaism: he examines scholarly works dealing with the complex relationship between ‘Jews and the state’, he elaborates on Jewish and Zionist ideologies, he unveils the role of Jewish oligarchs. Walberg also examines the tactics and strategies that are put into action by Israel and its supporters: global wars, nuclear armament, soft power, sayanim, spies and gatekeepers. He elaborates on the Israeli Lobby and their media manipulation. He also discloses the role of some Jewish elements within the Left in stifling free discourse and diverting attention from the real issues.

Towards the end of the book Walberg reveals the bitter truth: Israel is actually far more independent than America, its supportive backing empire: “Despite the continuation of its special relationship with the US, Israel is playing an increasingly independent role in GGIII around the world, with its government, corporations and kosher nostra working with whatever states and non-state actors are willing to condone its deadly games, selling arms, smuggling drugs, buying blood diamonds from Africa, conducting covert operations to subvert governments, assassinating opponents, forging passports… Its Diaspora community and Chabad network, found in virtually every corner of the globe, facilitate its game plan, keeping ahead of US plans and technology through its American Sayanim, operatives, spies and powerful lobby.” (p. 235.)

It seems as if Israel is well ahead of America in every possible field. If Israel has ever been a ‘Golem’ created by the ‘colonial powers’ as some Left thinkers insist to suggest, than it is pretty obvious that the ‘Golem’ has turned on its creator. “In keeping with Jewish survival strategy throughout history,” Walberg continues, “Israel’s plans are more subtle than those of the current ruling US empire, as it cannot hope to subdue the world directly, but rather primarily by shaping or subverting its host empire’s aims and strategies, to achieve its geopolitical “place in the sun” both through its Diaspora and through its own use of statecraft and subversion, untroubled by world reaction.”(p. 235)

Walberg’s Postmodern Imperialism is a landmark text, written at a crucial moment in time. For the West, America and Americans, this may be a final wake-up call. For Israel, Israelis and their supporters around the world, this text is a red alert. Israel urgently needs to find the way to restrain its ‘global expansionist enthusiasm’ before it is too late. In fact, it may be too late already.

1. The notion of modernity in this text refers to intellectual culture intertwined with ‘grand narratives’, rationality, enlightenment, coherence, science, secularisation, binary opposition and related factors.
2. Jews like all other people should have a land of their own.
3. Let us examine Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s “The Song Of Betar”:

   “A Jew even in poverty is a prince
   Though a slave or a tramp.
   You were created the son of a king,
   Crowned with David’s crown,
   The crown of pride and strife.”

4. Victim and oppressor.
5. Move Over AIPAC is certainly a good example of the above.

Secondly, an international attempt to fly hundreds of activists from all over the world to the West Bank also partially failed, as the Israeli Government had managed to mount just enough pressure to make sure that the project fell apart before it became airborne.¹

Though it may seem as if the Palestinian solidarity movement suffered a blow, it is actually Israel that was harshly beaten here, for Israel has managed to expose its level of hysteria: it seems that eight old yachts and a few hundred Easyjet passengers have managed to shake the entire Israeli society. Now try to imagine the potential impact of hundred of thousands of Palestinian refugees marching to their homes in Jaffa , Acre Lod , Ramle, Haifa, Beer Shiva and Al Quds.

I guess that the picture is clearer than ever: Israel doesn’t stand a chance. Its fate is doomed. It is just a question of time. It is not a matter of ‘if’ but a question of ‘when’.

But the truth of the matter goes slightly deeper. Both the Flotilla and the Flytilla are exemplary cases of ‘civil society campaigns’; they were intended to mobilise international public support using peaceful and democratic means.

Both campaigns were not aimed to harm Israel’s security in any way; rather, they were there to draw the world’s attention to the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. Their immediate goal i.e. reaching Palestine, was not fulfilled, but their mission is still a clear and significant victory because it proves once again what Israel is all about: the Jewish State is a closed society, a morbid collective driven by Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder (fuelled by vivid imaginary fantasies of destruction). Most importantly, the Israeli government’s desperate measures against the peaceful Flytilla proved to the world that the West Bank is also under siege, and Palestine is closed to visitors.

The leaders of the two ‘civil society campaigns’ had done their homework: they had planned it all for months, orchestrating and coordinating an airlift of different international groups. They had raised the funds, and they operated as you would expect ‘civil society campaigners’ to operate.

But they had failed to see one thing. They did not grasp the most obvious fact about the Jewish State and its supportive powers around the world. As much as they wanted to put into action the most civilised peaceful strategy, they may have failed to grasp that the Jewish State is not a civilised place, and it is also totally foreign to the notion of civilisation. Once again the Israeli Government provided its critics around the world with a clear lesson about the unique traits of the Jewish State.

Israel vs. Civilisation

The word ‘civilisation’ comes originally from the Latin word civilis, related to the Latin words civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or city-state.

‘Civilisation’, then, is traditionally grasped as a society that acknowledges and respects notions of ‘civil law’ and ‘citizenship’. Israel is not such a society unfortunately. Most of the people whose homes are on Israeli-controlled land lack basic civil rights just for failing to be Jewish.

It is possible that Israel’s deficiency in that regard is rooted in orthodox Judaism’s defiance of the notions of ‘civil law’ and civilisation. For Rabbinical Judaism, it is the Halacha law that strictly sets the legal rights and duties of the Jew.²

Interestingly enough, early Zionism was an attempt to remedy the situation. It promised to ‘civilise Jewish life’. It vowed to erect a Jewish society that respected principles of citizenship and secular civil law. But Zionism was doomed to fail. Already, at its moment of inception, the Jewish State preferred to ethnically cleanse the vast majority of the Palestinian population instead of exercising the theoretical possibility of ‘Jewish civilisation.’

The truth of the matter is that the Jewish state has battled with Halacha laws since its moment of birth. On the one hand secular Israelis, Hasbara agents and Zionists disseminate the deceptive image of a Jewish ‘democratic’, ‘civilised and open society’ but on the other hand, the religious institutions in Israel challenge that fictitious deceptive agenda: they clearly argue that if Israel defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’, it should give Jewishness some real meaning. They are basically referring to Halacha laws

The outcome of this struggle is clear: by now, Israel has very little respect for the notion of ‘civilisation’ or ‘civil law’. At the most, it mimics some liberal Western symptoms. The Arab MK Azmi Bishara who suggested a few years ago that Israel should become a state of all its citizens (i.e., a civilisation), had to run away for his life, and has lived in exile ever since. It is not a secret that Israeli Arabs (Palestinians with Israeli citizenship) are second class citizens, and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank lack any meaningful civil status. They are dwelling in open air prisons. They are subject to Israeli brutality and different forms of racially discriminative laws. Not only that, foreign labour communities in Israel are also totally marginalised, living a life of complete insecurity, with few rights.

The obvious question here then, is whether ‘civil society action’, as we have seen in recent weeks from international solidarity activists, can have any effect at all on a society that so clearly defies the notions of ‘civil law ‘and ‘civilisation’?

Jewish Diaspora and Civilisation

Israel itself is obviously just part of the problem: the Jewish State is supported by some relentless Jewish Lobbies all over the world. These lobbies do manage to push Western governments and political institutions into some very dark corners. In Britain, for instance, Sheikh Raed Salah, AKA the ‘Gandhi of Palestine’ has been detained for more than a week following the shameful British Government surrender to right-wing Jewish Lobby pressure. Also, the Israeli press was proud to report recently about the incentives offered by Jewish organisations to the struggling Greek government ahead of the Flotilla.

The Israeli Government and its supporting lobbies gathered a while back that it is much cheaper to buy a Western politician than it is to buy a tank.

So, the moral for the rest of us should be clear: though Israel itself defies the notion of civilisation, the above incidents prove that its lobbies around the world still manage to interfere with our respective nations’ civilisations.

Civil Society Action vs. the Non Civilised

Palestinian Solidarity leaders will have to draw the necessary lessons from the recent events. Civil Society Campaigns do indeed mobilise public support around the world and this is indeed very important. However, such campaigns may be just too weak to bring about a change of consciousness in Israel.

In order to defeat Israel and Zionism, we must first admit to ourselves what Israel is all about: we are combating a unique, racially oriented, expansionist tribal project that has no precedent in history, and this project exceeds beyond its natural geographical boundaries. Israel is not just a territorial quest; it is actually an ideology, and its modus operandi is driven by radical forms of racial supremacy (Jewish chosen-ness). But we should also acknowledge that the Jewish State is not alone: it is supported institutionally by world Jewry.

If we care about Palestine, world peace and the state of our world in general, our task is to stand up openly and identify the kinds of ideology, politics and culture that serve the Jewish State and its interests, both globally and locally. We do not necessarily have to travel to Palestine to combat the Israeli soldiers: it may be better to locate its mercenaries around us, in our media, political institutions, think tanks, academia and economy.

These people and organisations actually interfere with our civilisation, with our most sacred Western values of ethics, pluralism, harmony and tolerance.

1. Those activists that did make it to Israel were very quickly detained and given deportation orders.
2. It may be argued that Islam also defies the notion of Civil Law. However, unlike Judaism, Islam is a universal precept. It clearly defined respectful measures and approaches towards ethnic and religious minorities.

“The purpose of the flotilla is to discredit the Israeli attempt to protect itself and to give Hamas a free hand amassing weapons to use against Israeli civilians.” Wisse also forms a new type of ‘Jewish solipsism,’ saying “It should be called for what it is: a ‘kill-the-Jews flotilla. If it is called by its proper name, then it will be recognized for what it is.”

Here is the Yiddish logic: label first, then grasp accordingly. However, I would like to remind Wisse that as things stand in the Middle East, it is not the Flotilla peace activists or the democratically elected Hamas who kill. It is actually the Jewish State that is doing the killing, en masse, and in the name of the Jewish people.

The Saviour of the West

But Israel is not just about Jewish interests, according to the Yiddish Professor, it has a far greater role. Israel is the “fighting front line of what we used to call Western civilization, of the democratic free world.”

It is nice to find a Yiddish professor being so openly ‘nostalgic’ about Western civilisation, but I have to point out that Wisse is not familiar enough with the crucial philosophical distinction between Athens and Jerusalem: while Jerusalem stands for tribalism, chosen-ness and brutality, Athens represents the birth of the West, i.e. universalism, reason, Christianity , and ethical thinking (something that clearly is not reflected by the shameful behaviour of the Government in Athens this week).

Wisse is either lying, misinformed, or deluding herself — Israel has nothing to do with Western thought or Western values; indeed, Israel and Jewish ideology are the total opposite of Western thought. At the most, Israel can, at times, be seen as an attempt to mimic aspects of Western thought and value systems.

Moreover, Israel is not a ‘civilisation’ and it is also far from being an exemplary civilised society. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State — and accordingly, Jews from Brooklyn enjoy rights that Palestinians from Jaffa, Lod, Acre, Ramle lack. For Israel to be a ‘civilisation’ then, it must first become a State Of Its Citizens. It must first accept the notion of civil law, and erase any traces of Jewish theocratic traits. Until that happens, Israel cannot be regarded as a civilisation, let alone ‘Western Civilisation.’

Arab Spring

In discussing the Arab spring, Wisse says, “If there’s one factor that I would keep my eye on in trying to assess whether the Arab world is moving forward toward democracy, toward internal reformation – or moving backward into greater repression…”

Like the ‘Progressive Jew’, Wisse follows a trivial, binary structuralist model: she divides the world into ‘progressive’ and ‘reactionary.’ Like the ‘Progressive Jew’, she somehow locates herself and her brethren amongst ‘the chosen’ — i.e. ‘the progressive,’ those who ‘move forward.’

Clearly, Wisse, fails to acknowledge the obvious role of Islam in general, and in the current events in particular. Islam is a call for justice and equality and it goes far beyond any judaeo-fied binary model. Islam actually integrates temporality — it looks forward while glimpsing backward, and vice-versa.

But, make no mistake, Wisse also defines what moving ‘forward’ may entail for the Arabs: “that one factor would be whether Arab leaders are able to accept the State of Israel without condition and without concern.” “As long as the Arab world uses Israel as a convenient excuse for not looking inward, for not undergoing its own reformation, for not undertaking its own improvements, those countries cannot improve.”

Self-Reflection

Isn’t Wisse projecting here? In truth, isn’t the time actually ripe for the Jewish scholars, Yiddish experts and Zionist leaders to look inward?

Wisse represents, in fact, yet another glimpse into Jewish identity politics, and the total lack of capacity to self-reflect. It would be far more helpful if the ‘scholar’ would stop her ranting for just a second, and ask herself: how is it that Jews have consistently been faced with firm opposition eventually, wherever they go, and whatever they do?

Rather than ‘blaming the Goyim’ time after time, it is surely about time for Jewish academics and scholars to launch a true enterprise, driven by inward looking and genuine self-reflection.

Rather than repeatedly suggesting ‘what is wrong’ with the Gentiles, again and again, they would surely be better advised to at least begin to consider the notion, once and for all, that something may actually be slightly problematic with Jewish ideology and culture itself.

At the age of sixty, David visits a British military cemetery in Israel. For the first time in his life he is about to call upon the grave of his father Ralph who was blown up in 1947 at the age of twenty five by the Jewish Stern Gang.

The play is a unique encounter between David, a middle-aged Englishman, and his dead father Ralph, a young English Corporal at the time of the British Mandate. It is a meeting through which we, the audience, can ‘witness’ six decades of Israeli brutality, through the eyes of a dead British Corporal buried in foreign soil along side thousands of his peers. The play is a cleverly constructed dialogue between a sixty year old son: a man who grew up in post WWII Britain, an indoctrinated gentleman and a liberated dead father who is free to call things what they actually are.

The play is a journey into the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It dares to look into the role of the British in the creation of yet another endless war. It is also courageous enough to review and assess the cruelty of Jewish terror-groups towards the British military. It goes deeper than most political commentators and academics, for it is brave enough to look honestly at the imaginary distinction between Jews, Israel and Zionism. Ralph is obviously impervious to political correctness — he sees Zionists and Israelis for what they are — namely, Jews. Initially, David couldn’t agree less, insisting that Jews are kind and compassionate people. He would contend, that it is merely the Israelis and Zionists who may be slightly problematic.

As the play evolves, David witnesses Israeli brutality for himself. And once he has visited a Palestinian home he falls in love with Palestine, immediately empathising with the Palestinian plight. Overnight, David is transformed into a Palestinian advocate. He then meets Israeli soldiers at a road block and he encounters the arrogance of an MIT lieutenant, a new Jewish-American immigrant who claims ownership of someone else’s land. He also meets a Romanian female sergeant who teaches him a lesson in Israeli rudeness.

These events are enough to transform David into an anti-separation wall activist. Needless to say that by that time, the old school English tie is replaced by a Palestinian scarf, hung loosely around his neck.

As the the play unfolds, we witness a continuum of six decades of merciless vengeance enacted by new comers, people who do not belong to Palestine. You can call them Israelis, or Zionists, or Jews — in fact it doesn’t really matter — whoever or whatever they are, they must be stopped.

The play is on for another week. If you happen to be in or around London, you don’t want to miss it. The play once again reaffirms my view that art and beauty are leading the journey towards justice, for art excels precisely where academia, politics, activism, journalism and the so called Left have failed so miserably.

Untill Monday 6 June 2011

Tuesday to Saturday at 8:30pm
Saturday & Sunday at 4:45pm

Tickets
£16 (Concs £14)

To Book

0870 033 2733

It is becoming clear that Israel lacks the means to cope with Palestinian resilience. Despite Israeli barbarism; despite sixty-three years of oppression, racial discrimination and mass murderous tactics– including the usage of WMD– the Palestinian people have remained determined to return to their land.

This week they reminded the Israelis, world Jewry and the rest of the world that the Palestinian cause is not going to fade away. If anything, in 2011, Palestinians seem more decisive, firm and united than their parents’ or grandparents’ generations.

Hence, it is almost amusing to follow the bizarre manner in which Israeli writer Barnea tries to convince himself otherwise, proclaiming “Their politicians told them it would happen. The clerics promised Allah’s help. Foreign sponsors provided flags and buses. They embark on their mission with the confidence that the Zionist project is destined to collapse. Another small push and the entire Land of Israel, from the Jordan to the Sea, will become Palestine.”

Whether Barnea grasps it or not, this is indeed the vision more and more Palestinians have in mind and this is exactly the vision I have in mind. This is the exact vision more and more people around the world envisage as a perfect solution, and clearly, this is the only ethical and universal solution to this bitter conflict: Israel will be Palestine. It will stretch from the river to the sea. And it will be a State of all its citizens as opposed to the racially exclusivist ‘Jews only’ State.

“I have news for you, my dear cousins,¹” says Barnea in a condescending manner. “It won’t be happening – not in your lifetime…. Sixty-three years have passed since that war; the time has come to embrace other dreams.”

It doesn’t take a genius to gather that Barnea, like many other Israelis, expresses wishful thinking here rather than a reading of the reality on the ground. As it happens – and more than a few of us detected it decades ago – Palestinians are at the forefront of a battle for a better world. The current regional Arab revolution is a mass call for justice, but also for justice in Palestine. As much as the world looks with admiration at young Muslims and Arabs making a change, it also becomes general knowledge that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. The Palestinian Right of Return is about to become an international priority issue, and Israel will be defeated on that front. The West wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice Israel on that issue: isolated and humiliated, Israel is going to struggle hopelessly against the entire region. And to clarify the matter, time is not exactly on the side of the Jewish State.

Israel has had sixty-three years to confront its original sin. It had a window of opportunity to repent, and open its border to the millions of refugees it so brutally expelled. But now the window seems to have been closed. Israel has lost the chance to save itself from itself. And what we saw this week was just an introduction. Israel is about to face a tidal wave of Palestinian gatherings on its borders. Israel doesn’t possess the political or military means to deal with these emerging forms of non-violent resistance.

Barnea like many other Israelis loves Abbas: according to the Israeli columnist Abbas is “the most humane, lovely politician in the three governments currently serving in the Land of Israel.” However, Barnea is disappointed to find out that even Abbas “gets carried away” when he declared on the eve of Nakba Day that no Palestinian leader will renounce the right of return: “the return is not a slogan…Palestine is ours.”

Barnea stresses that Abbas refrained from clarifying the question of how, and where this right will be realised, and whether it will be through compensation or physical return. Barnea concludes that “anyone could make what he wanted” out of Abass’ words.” But in fact Barnea is wrong again. Abbas’ words were totally clear: there was no hidden message or even ambiguity in them. The return is not a slogan. For a while it was a universal and an ethical call. But as things stand this week, it is now becoming a call for a direct action. Barnea and most Israelis may still fail to grasp that today’s Middle East is a new entity all together. It is united; it is firm, and it is far from timid. It is vibrant, and revolutionary, and fuelled by yearning for justice and freedom. Israel is surrounded by a wall of fierce resistance. As far as the Jewish State is concerned, the countdown has begun.

Barnea ends his diatribe by telling his fellow Israelis that “those who wish to live in the sovereign, Zionist and democratic State of Israel have no other option but to keep telling the Palestinians: with all due respect, what’s in the past is in the past.”

Yet, a universal reading of Barnea’s suggestion surely also logically implies that the rest of us then, can also now relieve ourselves of the endless burden of Jewish exceptional suffering too: after all, Barnea did say, ‘what’s in the past is in the past.’ Accordingly then, if the Jews are not unique in their collective pain, nothing should stop the Israelis from opening a new page too, so they can cross the divide and build bridges with the indigenous people of the land; those whom they themselves ethnically cleansed and attempted to destroy. For if the burden of the past can, as Barnea suggests, lose its relevance or significance, Israel might as well live up to that, and turn its face to a brighter future and voluntarily invite the Palestinian refugees to return to their land. Such a move would mean an immediate end to the conflict.

But, needless to say, I do not hold my breath.

Yet, there is one crucial (currently hypothetical) question I must address: nowadays, when it becomes clear that the Jewish state approaches its final phase, how would Israelis who would like to return to Europe react to a Barnea-like ‘no return’ statement if it were expressed by a European ‘liberal’ columnist? How would Israelis or the rest of us react to the following: ‘there will be no return-time has come to tell the Jews they will not be returning to Europe’?

Such a statement would clearly provoke outrage amongst many of us.

Yet sadly enough, we are all too used to hear similar statements from ‘liberal’ Israelis and Jews.

1. Cousins- a derogatory manner in which Israelis refers to Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. I vow to explore this term and its origin in one of my next papers.

Acting as a joint effort, they are trying to stifle freedom of speech: they seem to be horrified by the idea that a panel of intellectuals, journalists and an artist plan to explore the intriguing bond between Israel, Zionism and ‘Jewishness’, and thus far they have harassed panelists, threatened an academic institute and have spread lies, smears and defamation.

And yet in doing so they have unwittingly provided us with a tremendous glimpse into a contemporary Jewish secular tribal operation.

And what is at the root of their hysteria? For some peculiar reason, both Zionists and UK Jewish so-called ‘anti Zionists’, insist that discussing ‘Jewishness’ is a taboo which should never be explored, certainly not in public, and definitely never outside of the ghetto.

But isn’t it all just more than a little suspicious? After all, please consider that the Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ operate politically under a Jewish banner; they also clearly carry their Jewish identity with pride; and, like the ‘Jews only state’, they also run a ‘Jews only club’ — yet they want to try to stop us from questioning what this club actually stands for. They want to take it further and even try to stop us from discussing and grasping what the Jewishness of Israel is all about.

Why are they so concerned about others questioning their ideology, an identity which they themselves are clearly and openly so proud of?

Is it that we are not allowed to question ideologies and political precepts? Should we, then, also have stopped Max Weber from looking into the role of Protestantism in the context of the rise of capitalism? And if Israel proudly defines itself as the Jewish State, then are we not entitled to also wonder what its Jewishness actually means?

And shouldn’t we also be entitled to refer the exact same questions to the UK Jewish ‘anti Zionists’?

It seems clear to me that we do have that right to know.

A few years ago I invented a spoof character. His name was Artie Fishel. Artie was a satirical, fictional Jewish American musician, a rabid Zionist, convinced that jazz was Jewish. He believed that jazz music also had nothing to do with America or Africa. He wanted it back, and thus founded ‘Artie Fishel & The Promised Band’.

Artie Fishel was obviously a parody of the Zionist enterprise: if we can take Palestine from the Arabs, then surely we can take jazz from the Americans.

To listen to Artie click here.

The Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ here in the UK were the first to oppose the project. The first night on the road, we played in Nottingham. As the gig finished, a ‘Jewish progressive’ promoter (who was and still is a friend of mine) approached us. She stood there with tears in her eyes : “Everything you say is so true; but why do you have to share it with the Goyim,” she said, in a broken voice.

She wasn’t amused by the satirical Artie.

We realised that we must have touched a sensitive nerve.

Jewish humour is based on self mockery; yet it is very clear to Jews where the boundaries of mockery are. Jewish comedians know where to stop. To a certain extent Jewish humour is a very sophisticated form of ‘discourse management.’ It is there to define the template of self-reflection. In some regards, it openly admits to a certain level of Jewish cultural essentialism; but it insists that such a phenomena is nothing but charming.

Sadly enough though, I myself do not really find the Jewish State a ‘charming concept’: I cannot see what is so charming about a society that collectively supports carpet bombardment of civilians.²

I also fail to see what is so charming about relentless Jewish lobbying. And when I look at the reality of Jewish political dissidence here in the UK; and when I read about Jewish campaigners harassing a fellow Palestinian academic or solidarity activists ( in the ‘name of Palestine’ no less ) it really begins to make me feel sick.

I often ask myself: what is it that they are so afraid of ? Why are they so desperate to stop us from looking into the meaning of their flag?

I can think of two possible answers:

1. It could be that they may not even know themselves what their ‘Jewishness’ stands for — but they are certainly clever enough to grasp that they had better not find out: they clearly realise that the concept may turn out to be a ‘Pandora box’. Such an answer is consistent with Judaic teaching, for in Judaism, observance is primary; comprehension is secondary. In other words, Judaism demands blind acceptance.

2. It could also be that they know very well what ‘Jewishness’ means, yet they know how sinister it may look for the outsider. Hence they use different tactics, just to stop the rest of us from looking into it. If that is the case, such an answer might mean that their apparent attempt to stifle a debate may be inherent to their conception of ‘Jewishness’.

Yet, considering the crimes that are committed by the Jewish state, and considering the measures that are taken by some elements within the Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network, the time is clearly overdue for us to look into the true meaning of Jewish ideology — what does it stand for; what does it preach; what does it promise, and essentially, what does it insist to take away from us (namely, freedom of speech and expression)?

But here is the good news: it is apparent that many Jews, and even Jewish spiritual leaders are now breaking away from the Jewish ‘left’ in order to find a meaningful path into true universal empathy as equal and ordinary human beings. I know that is the case, because they ask to meet me. I know, because they talk to me. I know, because they ask questions, rather than repeating ready-made answers.

And most of all I know because I myself left the ghetto many years ago and I see them trying to do the same.

Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel

Time: Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm – 8:30pm
Location: University Of Westminster – Cavendish Campus
A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.
Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon, and others

1. Sayanim- Diaspora Jews subservient to Israeli interests. Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky describes how Sayanim function in By Way Of Deception. ‘They are usually reached through relatives in Israel… They perform many different roles. A car Sayan, for example, running a rental car agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment Sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank Sayan could fund someone in the middle of the night if needs be, a doctor Sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police.’
2. At the time of Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), Israeli polls showed that 94 per cent of Israel’s Jewish population backed the war and IDF tactics.

there are no new facts that could possibly have led Richard Goldstone to change his mind about the UN-backed investigation into Israel and the conflict in Gaza.

While Goldstone claimed that the Israeli investigations produced some results also recognised by a follow-up UN committee report chaired by Judge Mary McGowan Davis, Dugard stresses that the McGowan Davis report was actually very critical of the Israeli investigations, finding them to be “lacking in impartiality, promptness and transparency.” According to the McGowan Davis report, the Israeli ‘probe’ has resulted in “two convictions; one for theft of a credit card, resulting in a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment, and another for using a Palestinian child as a human shield, which resulted in a suspended sentence of three months.”

Dugard is clearly bewildered by Goldstone’s latest zigzag: “Richard Goldstone is a former judge and he knows fully well that a fact-finding report by four persons cannot be changed by the subsequent reflections of a single member of the committee.” What made Goldstone change his mind “remains a closely guarded secret,” says Dugard. Dugard is clearly frustrated, and, somewhat cynical here. But I guess that we all know the answer, because for some time now, we have witnessed Goldstone being subjected to relentless measures of exclusion and abuse from his Zionist brethren. As a matter of fact, intolerance towards critical voices is inherent within Jewish culture, identity, and politics, for Zionism is clearly a demand for ideological collectivism. But interestingly enough, Jewish anti Zionism is also no different in its modus operandi: all too often we come across a Jewish ‘progressive’ poisonous smear campaign against one ‘Jewish self-hater’ or another.

Jewish ‘cultural heritage’ could be presented as a chain of different attempts to silence, and even eliminate dissidence: some Jews were nailed to wood; some were assassinated; others were stoned, and a few were excluded or excommunicated. Many lost their jobs and many others were subject to endless slander. As tragic as it may sound, Jewish identity politics is an exercise in some different variations of collective hatred; hatred towards the Goyim, but also towards Jewish dissidence.

The Goldstone saga is then, an opportunity to peep into contemporary Jewish political intolerance, and Goldstone emerges as a tragic figure: he sacrificed his professional name for the sake of just a little Jewish empathy. Yet he clearly forgot that forgiveness is not at all a highly regarded value within the ghetto walls — I learned yesterday that a group of American Jewish lawyers are preparing a civil lawsuit against Goldstone for libel. I guess that revenge may as well unite them all.

As we are becoming accustomed to Zionism being the biggest threat to world peace, it is also interesting to learn how hostile Jews are towards each other.

Ahead of his visit to the country, Dershowitz’ lectures were offered (without any charge) at the three leading Norwegian universities. These universities, who on earlier occasions had been happy to host Harvard Scholar Stephen Walt and Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, clearly said ‘no’ to Dershowitz.

The Dean of the Law Faculty at Bergen University told Dershowitz that he would be honoured to have him present a lecture on the O.J. Simpson case — as long as he was willing to promise not to mention Israel.

I guess that the message was clear — while the Dean of the Law Faculty thought that his students may benefit from learning about the legal advocacy of a ‘single murder suspect’ — he probably could not see any academic justification in educating them about the possible defense of a ‘murderous collective,’ i.e., the Jewish State.

An administrator at the Trondheim school said that Israel was too ‘controversial.’ That is surely the most polite way possible to refer to a racist expansionist terrorist state. The University of Oslo simply said “no” without offering any excuse.

But then the shekel dropped: “It was then”, writes Dershowitz, “that I realized why all this happened. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics.”

Did I miss something here? Dershowitz is not exactly even an Israeli; he is, actually, an American Jew – so why should he regard himself as a ‘victim’ of the academic and cultural boycotts of ‘Jewish Israeli academics’?

I guess though, that Dershowitz grasps the inevitable truth here: the boycott against Israel is ethically driven — It obviously identifies Dershowitz and other Jewish lobbyists as an extension of the Israeli crime, and vice versa.

Seemingly, humanity and humanists are making an intensive effort to purify our cultural landscape of any traces of Zionist ideology and Zionist advocates: It is not just Israeli academics that we oppose — it is actually people who are affiliated with any form of Jewish supremacist ideology. Dershowitz can be assured that Jews and even Israelis are more than welcome in Norway — as long as they do not represent the Jewish State and its policies.

As you may have expected though, Dershowitz could not leave the scene without trying to dig up some ‘dirt.’ He found out that Trond Adresen (a professor at Trondheim who was amongst the leaders of the cultural Boycott of Israeli academics) had, on an earlier occasion, written that ‘there is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews.’

Apparently, Adresen’s words were taken out of context (as he himself explained.)

Yet the most obvious fact here is that there surely is something ‘immensely self-satisfied,’ ‘self-centered,’ and tribally obsessed about Dershowitz himself, and since Dershowitz insists on representing Jewish interests on every possible platform (that would be lame enough to allow him to do so), Dershowitz should also be aware of the bad impression he gives of the Jewish people as a collective.

“This line of talk — directed at Jews, not Israel — is apparently acceptable among many in Norway’s elite,” complains Dershowitz.

One should remind the dull Zionist American lawyer that Israel does actually specifically define itself as the ‘Jewish State’, and therefore if Dershowitz wants others to differentiate between ‘Israel’ and the ‘Jews’ — he might also be kind enough to advise us where the demarcation line between the two begins and ends: where for instance does ‘Israel’ end and the ‘Jews’ start? Or more precisely, where exactly does ‘Israel’ end, and where does ‘Dershowitz’ start?

The world we are living in is becoming increasingly aware of the destructive power of Zionism. It is also becoming more and more aware of the role of the Jewish lobbies, and of their powers within the media. The world we are living in is becoming allergic to Dershowitz, and for a damn good reason.

‘Jews you’re not welcome here’ was Dershowitz’s interpretation of his rejection in Norway.

He was obviously wrong. The clear, direct and unmistakable message was, ‘Dershowitz you’re not welcome here.’

But it goes further — sooner than you think, Dershowitz won’t be welcome anywhere.

And yet I wonder: how different would it be? How different could it be? Goldstone is impressed with Israel dedicating some “significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza’, but it somehow leaves me bewildered.

Let us assume that at the time Goldstone and his team looked into the cold blooded murder of more than 1400 Palestinians, they would also be aware of an Israeli enquiry. What difference would it make?


‘For example,’ says Goldstone, ‘the most serious attack the Goldstone Report focused on was the killing of some 29 members of the al-Simouni family in their home. The shelling of the home was apparently (according to the Israeli investigation) the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack.’

For some peculiar reason, Goldstone allows Israel to reduce its institutional responsibility for a colossal war crime, into a chain of local errors, made by a few low rank officers who may, or may not, face criminal charges.

One should remind Goldstone that the decision to use artillery and carpet bombardment in Gaza wasn’t taken by ‘some’ military commanders on the ground: these decisions were taken by a democratically elected Israeli cabinet. Furthermore, these decisions were supported at the time by 94% of the Israeli Jewish population.

 The decision to rain barrages of white phosphorous over the most populated place on this planet was a strategic decision, and it was taken by Israeli military high command. The fact that Israel (may) sacrifice the military career of one Moishe’le or two Yank’le doesn’t change the validity of Goldstone original report at all; it only proves that Israel fails to take responsibility for its actions.

The Israeli ‘enquiry’ should actually be interpreted as a typical act of Zionist cowardice, for the Jewish state fails to admit its collective responsibility for the atrocities it committed in the name of the Jewish people, and in the name of the Goldstones of this world. Instead of taking responsibility then, Israeli politicians now want to put the blame on Israel’s soldiers.

 And for some reason, Goldstone would like the Hamas to do the same: Goldstone (the new master of the U-Turn) foresees the Hamas behaving like Israel; i.e., involved in spin and deception. He basically expects the Hamas to zigzag like himself.

But the Hamas is clearly made of better material — unlike Israeli politicians and Goldstone, the Hamas takes full responsibility for its actions. It openly and proudly resists the racist Jewish state. It is not trying to place the blame on some anonymous grass roots freedom fighters — The Hamas is sending love letters to the Palestinians’ stolen land. Indeed, some send messages in bottles; the Hamas send them in rockets. But the message is beautiful, simple and clear.

 ‘My lands, my soil, don’t lose your hope on us. We are here surrounded by barbed wire, but time will come soon for us to unite.’

In his convoluted Washington Post apology, Goldstone reveals a severe lack of understanding of Israeli militarism, its role, and its operational philosophy. Israeli strategy is based on the power of deterrence. Israel is there to terrify its neighbours, through death, and carnage. Israel believes that through shock and awe, it can exhaust the Palestinians, and break their spirit. Every so often, the Jewish state exercises a genocidal act — and the numbers of Palestinian fatalities speak for themselves. More than 1400 Palestinians died in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead: they died because Israel believes that Jewish future security is a function of the pain it inflicts upon others. The Goldstone report exposes the criminality that is imbued within Israeli militarism, and Goldstone’s current attempt to dismantle his own report cannot wash away his original findings.

I tend to agree that Goldstone’s U Turn was surely inevitable: the history of Jewish animosity towards dissidents has long been firmly established, and in the last two years Goldstone and his family were subject to enormous pressure and social exclusion. It is more than likely that Goldstone was torn apart by it all. 

But the time has surely come to admit that we have reached the point of no return: we have to free our intellectual, spiritual and ethical life from any trace of Zionist ideology, from people who may have Zionist views or may have even been affiliated with Zionist philosophy.

I believe that ethical discourse should move beyond any form of Judeo centric ‘ethical zigzagging.’

Lipstadt is clearly opposing holocaust deniers whom she also identifies as anti-Semites, yet, she fails to define what denial means. She also comes short of suggesting what anti-Semitism stands for. I guess that for Lipstadt, ‘deniers’ are those who insist that our past must be revisited, scrutinised and be told from different perspectives. People who hold such views are usually called historical revisionists or simply historians. Yet, historical revisionists are clearly perceived by Lipstadt as anti-Semites — I guess that for Lipstadt, those who dare touch or fiddle with the Jewish past are nothing less than enemies.

The ‘deniers’, according to Lipstadt, are a lively movement that is working vigorously to “distort history and inculcate anti-Semitism”. Yet, it is far from being clear how anyone can ‘distort history’, for history is not a singular set of facts laid down and dictated by one group of people alone. Rather it is an attempt to transform the past into a story aspire to as full a narrative as is possible, drawn from as many points of view and from as wide a body of research as is available. History is an attempt then, to build a narrative. Different people should be entitled to hold different perspectives of their past.

Seemingly, Lipstadt is not happy with it all. She wants the chapter known as the holocaust to become a meta-historical impenetrable narrative. It is not clear to me and to a growing number of academics, artists and ordinary people, why Jewish academics and institutions are so afraid of this particular chapter in history being looked at and discussed freely.

For some peculiar reason Lipstadt regards herself as a ‘scholar’, yet her engagement with the subject matter is far from being scholarly oriented. Her reading of the Nazi era is utterly embarrassing — for instance, she says “had the world taken Nazi anti-Semitism more seriously from the outset of the rise of the Third Reich the subsequent tragedy might have been quite different.”

But it seems as if the world did actually react very seriously to Nazi anti-Semitism. It basically followed the Nazi agenda. America and Britain closed their gates to Jews, leaving European Jewish refugees to face their fate. Even the Zionists failed to do much to save their European brothers and sisters. It is also clear that the Nazis would not have succeeded in their ethnic cleansing project unless they had been assisted by European communities, governments, and even by Jewish institutions. It seems as if the Nazis were not the only anti-Semites; they were just more open about it.

Lipstadt’s ignorance knows no limits. She continues, “in the 1930s and 1940s, of course, observers—and the potential victims—could not fathom where Hitler and his cohort’s anti-Semitism might lead.” I guess that the Jewish ‘historian’ doesn’t really know that in the 1930’s and the early 1940’s ‘Hitler and his cohort’ also didn’t know themselves where they were aiming’. We do know that they wanted a Germany free of Jews — and this is, indeed, pretty outrageous. Yet, it is not that different from the vast majority of Israelis, who want a Palestine that is free of Palestinians.

Lipstadt is convinced that the ‘deniers’ are motivated by “hatred of Jews and their desire to do them harm”. But the truth of the matter is slightly embarrassing: historical revisionism is a growing body of knowledge. It doesn’t claim to address ‘the Jewish question’, nor does it offer any political agenda, and neither does it call to harm Jews. However, one may note that rather too often we come across Jewish institutional calls to harm, and even to destroy, Arabs and Muslims. I would then, expect Lipstadt to be consistent, and to stand against her own brothers’ and sisters’ genocidal inclinations. But clearly, integrity is not something you should expect from a Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies.

When it becomes clear that Lipstadt has nothing clever to say about the subject (or maybe any subject) she pulls the rabbit out of her hat, or should we say, she pulls Ahmadinejad out of her wig. “During the past five years we have heard a stream of Holocaust denial, overt anti-Semitism, and threats against Israel emanate from the mouth of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial is linked directly to his animus toward Israel.”

And this is where Jewish past, present and future are wrapped together into a collective meaning that appears totally impervious to reason, ethics or humanity. It is obviously clear that those who oppose Israeli barbarism may, at a certain stage, look at the Zionist’s raison d’être, namely the holocaust. It is obviously natural for those who detest Israeli lies to scrutinise every Israeli or Jewish narrative – And the question is, what is so wrong with doing so? Why are Jews, or at least some Jews, horrified by the idea that others might be suspicious of aspects of their historical narratives? Why is it so difficult for Lipstadt to accept that Ahmadinejad opposes Israel, and also, questions aspects of the Jewish past?

“In 2009”, says Lipstadt, “after questioning the existence of the Holocaust, he (Ahmadinejad) declared it was a ploy used by the Jews to get the West to accede to the creation of Israel.” Again, isn’t it a scholarly and legitimate question on behalf of Ahmadinejad? Are not the holocaust and the foundation of the Jewish State inherently linked?

But — Don’t you worry, it is not Ahmadinejad alone whom the Yeshiva Scholar hates. “Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser spoke of the lie of the 6 million Jews… Spokesmen for Hamas have also engaged in Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial themes can be found in newspapers in many parts of the Arab world, including in Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon.”

Even Mahmoud Abbas was a ‘denier’ according to the Shoa genius, “as a young student, (Abbas) wrote a dissertation that was pure denial.” But guess what, Abbas doesn’t have to worry; Lipstadt has forgiven him already. He (Abbas) “subsequently repudiated his view” and Lipstadt “fully believes his repudiation.” At least, Lipstadt is flexible enough to amend her ‘academic’ views so they fit into the current Israeli political agenda.

I guess that it would make sense to argue that Lipstadt is continuing to fight what is by now a lost battle. Our past is not a Jewish property. When I read Lipstadt’s pseudo-academic diatribe, I am convinced that aspects of the Zionist view of history must continue to be scrutinised and debated, for history cannot be handled or censored by any form of Yeshiva scholarship, for Yeshiva ideology is the complete opposite of Western spirit, intellectual debate and openness.

Lipstadt asserts, “seventy years ago people had an acceptable reason to say, ‘We could never fathom that Hitler meant what he said.’ Today we no longer have that luxury. At the very least it behooves us to take Ahmadinejad and those among his fellow Muslim leaders and opinion-makers seriously.”

Seemingly Lipstadt urges Western leaders to dismantle Iran and other Muslim countries in the name of the history she doesn’t allow them to revise or scrutinise. I guess that for the sake of world peace, it is necessary to expose people like Lipstadt and her cohort.

In her final paragraph Lipstadt seems to find out what is wrong with the revisionists, “their Holocaust denial is part of their contemporary political agenda.”

In psychological terminology, the above is defined as projection — Lipstadt projects her own symptoms on historical revisionists. It is obviously clear that Lipstadt’s ‘holocaust evangelism’ is there to serve her own Zio-centric political agenda.

The question you may want to ask yourself at this stage is, for how long will we let Yeshiva supremacist Ideology determine our vision of our past? I myself believe that time is ripe to say NO to Jewish Ideology and politics. Enough is certainly enough.