Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gilad Atzmon: 3rd Category Jews

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Gilad Atzmon Friday, July 1, 2005 http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/3rd.html As far as self
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement
      Gilad Atzmon
      Friday, July 1, 2005
      http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/3rd.html


      As far as self perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews
      could be divided into three main categories:



      1. those who follow Judaism.



      2. those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of
      Jewish origin.



      3. those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other
      traits.



      Obviously, the first two categories specify an harmless group of
      people. We do tend to respect religious people, as they are generally
      expected to be living inspired by their beliefs and are expected to
      abide by some sort of a higher spiritual code. Needless to say, we
      have no problem with the second category as well. One cannot choose
      one's origin. We agree that people must be respected and treated
      equally regardless of their origin or their racial and ethnic belonging.



      However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its
      definition may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough,
      it is a general formulation of Chaim Weizmann's view of the Jewish
      identity as expressed in his famous address at the First Jewish
      Congress: "There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but
      only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America."[1]



      According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a
      primary quality. You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who
      plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism. But above all else you
      are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the 3rd category.
      It is all about viewing Jewishness as the key element in one's being.
      Any other quality is secondary.



      This is exactly the message the early Zionists were interested in
      promulgating. For Weizmann, Jewishness is a unique quality that stops
      the Jew from assimilating within the nation he is a citizen of. He
      will always remain an alien. This very line of thinking was more than
      apparent in most early Zionist writings. Jabotinsky, the founder of
      right wing Zionism, takes it even further. He is more than firm that
      assimilation is impossible due to some biological conditioning. Here
      is what he had to say about the German Jew: "A Jew brought up among
      Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly
      imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual
      structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his
      physical racial type are Jewish." (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 'A Letter on
      Autonomy', 1904). The reader may notice that these outrageous racist
      ideas predate Nazism. Jabotinsky wasn't alone, even the Marxist Ber
      Borochov who refers the Jewish condition to some historical and
      material circumstances is suggesting a remedy that is particular to
      Jewish people, i.e. Jewish Nationalism in which Jews will practice
      some proletarian activity, namely production. As it seems, Borochov
      lets Jews be separated from the international proletarian revolution.
      Why does he do this? Just because Jews are uniquely Jewish or at least
      the Zionists tend to believe they are.



      However, one may rightly ask whether it was the Zionists who invented
      this 3rd category?



      In fact, it is not that way at all.



      Seemingly, Shakespeare had noticed this very pattern three hundred
      years earlier. Shylock, the famous money lender from Venice was a
      proper 3rd category Jew. He clearly admits that more than anything
      else he is a Jew who possesses many human features. `I am a Jew' says
      Shylock, "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
      dimensions, senses, affections, passions?" And yet Shylock insists
      that he shares many human features: "Fed with the same food, hurt with
      the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the
      same winter and summer, as a Christian is." Shylock claims to be
      essentially similar to the entire humanity: "If you prick us, do we
      not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we
      not die?...."[2] Noticeably, according to Shylock the Jew is as
      vulnerable as an ordinary human being and yet he is primarily Jewish.



      This is indeed the essence of Zionism, The Zionist is first and
      foremost a Jew. He can't be just an ordinary British citizen who
      happens to be of a Jewish descent. He is rather a Jew who dwells in
      Britain. He is a Jew who speaks English, he is a Jew who gets his
      health services from the NHS, he is a Jew who happens to drive on the
      left side of the road. He is the ultimate Other. Generally speaking,
      3rd category Jews are the ultimate Others. Just because they are
      always somewhere at the margins of or apart from any given human
      condition or human landscape.



      Zionist agents



      As it seems, Shylock was a Zionist, he fitted perfectly into
      Weizmann's model. He was a 3rd category Jew. However, Shylock didn't
      make it to Palestine. He didn't engage himself in confiscating
      Palestinian land. He wasn't even an Israeli soldier. In fact the 3rd
      category Jew doesn't have to move to Palestine. Apparently, dwelling
      in Zion is merely just one possible practice within the Zionist
      philosophy. In order to become a proper Zionist you don't have to
      wander. Sometimes it is actually better if you stay exactly wherever
      you are. Let us read what Victor Ostrovsky, an ex-Mossad agent, is
      telling us about 3rd category Jews.



      "The next day Ran S. delivered a lecture on the sayanim, a unique and
      important part of the Mossad's operation. Sayanim - assistants - must
      be 100 percent Jewish. They live abroad, and though they are not
      Israeli citizens, many are reached through their relatives in Israel.
      An Israeli with a relative in England, for example, might be asked to
      write a letter telling the person bearing the letter that he
      represents an organization whose main goal is to help save Jewish
      people in the diaspora. Could the British relative help in any
      way?.....There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London
      alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the
      list. They fulfill many different roles. A car sayan, for example,
      running a rental 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 get
      you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor
      sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police,
      and so on. The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed
      who can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty
      to the cause. They are paid only costs." [3]



      I assume that it must be clear that sayanim are basically 3rd category
      Jews. People who regard themselves primarily as Jews. The sayan is a
      man who would betray the nation in which he is a citizen just to
      satisfy a bizarre notion of a clannish brotherhood.



      Zionism, an International Network



      We are now starting to realise that Zionism shouldn't be seen merely
      as a nationalist movement with a clear geographical aspiration. It
      isn't exactly a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine.
      Zionism appears to be an international movement that is fuelled by the
      solidarity of 3rd category subjects. To be a Zionist means just to
      accept that more than anything else you are primarily a Jew.



      Ostrovsky continues:

      "You have at your disposal a non-risk recruitment system that actually
      gives you a pool of millions of Jewish people to tap from outside your
      own borders. It's much easier to operate with what is available on the
      spot, and sayanim offer incredible practical support everywhere….Now
      one might suggest that, for example, Great Britain could use a similar
      system and recruit among WASPS around the world. But they don't,
      because they can't. It takes an extraordinary degree of racial
      solidarity and racial motivation to develop and maintain such a
      "non-risk recruitment system" and see to it that it works properly.
      Remember, all of these activities are spying, with long prison
      sentences if caught. Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry
      may have some residual loyalties to the old "mother country." But this
      residue is nothing like the racial solidarity of the Jews. Such racial
      feelings are so strong and so pervasive among Jews that the Mossad
      knew in advance that their recruitment system was "non-risk." Britain,
      Ireland, Italy and the Vatican know better than to try to implement
      such a thing. [4]



      Ostrovsky is talking here about `racial solidarity'. But in fact, Jews
      are far from being a single race. As funny as it may sound, most
      Palestinians are more racially Jewish than the Ashkenazi Jews.



      So if it isn't a racial solidarity, what is it that leads the sayan to
      run the risk of years of imprisonment? What did Jonathan Pollard have
      in his mind when he clearly betrayed his country? What do those 2,000
      sayanim here in London have in their minds when they betray their
      Queen? I assume that we are left here with one possibility: the
      solidarity of the 3rd category Jews. It is namely a solidarity of the
      people who regard themselves primarily as Jews.



      I tend to regard Ostrovsky's testimony as a very reliable report. As
      we know, at the time, the Israeli government was using every possible
      means to stop the publication of his books. In fact, this strange
      Israeli activity was more than an affirmation that Ostrovsky was
      indeed a Mossad agent and that the story that he is telling is rather
      genuine.



      In a radio interview Joseph Lapid, at the time an Israeli senior
      columnist, opened his heart and told the world what he thought of
      Ostrovsky: "Ostrovsky is the most treacherous Jew in modern Jewish
      history. And he has no right to live, except if he's prepared to
      return to Israel and stand trial."[5]



      Valerie Pringle, the journalist on the other side of the line asked
      Lapid: "Do you feel it's a responsible statement to say what you've said?"



      Lapid: "Oh yes, I fully believe in that. And unfortunately the Mossad
      cannot do it because we cannot endanger our relations with Canada. But
      I hope there will be a decent Jew in Canada who does it for us."



      Pringle: "You hope this. You could live with his blood on your hands?"



      Lapid: "Oh no. It's to...only it will not be his blood on my hands. It
      will be justice to a man who does the most horrible thing that any Jew
      can think of, and that is that he's selling out the Jewish state and
      the Jewish people for money to our enemies. There is absolutely
      nothing worse that a human being, if he can be called a human being,
      can do".



      Lapid, later a member in Sharon's cabinet, makes it more than clear:
      to be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or
      moral order. It is far more essential than any universal ethical
      perception. Clearly, for Lapid, Jewishness is not a spiritual stand,
      it is a political commitment. It is a world view that applies to the
      very last Jew on this planet. As he says: the Mossad can't really kill
      Ostrovsky, thus, it is down to a `decent Canadian Jew' to do the job.
      As is evident, a Zionist journalist is expressing here the most
      outrageous of views. He encourages a fellow Jew to commit a murder in
      the name of the Jewish brotherhood. In short, not only does Lapid
      affirm Ostrovsky's report about the world of sayanim, he also confirms
      Weizmann's view that from a Zionist point of view, there are no
      Canadian Jews but only Jews who live in Canada.



      I think that the above leaves us with enough room to conclude that at
      least in the Zionists' eyes, Jewishness is basically an international
      network operation. Ostrovsky calls it `racial solidarity', I call it
      3rd category brotherhood and Weizmann calls it Zionism. But it all
      means the very same thing. It is all about commitment, a global agenda
      that pools more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous fellowship.
      Apparently, Zionism is not about Israel. Israel is just a colony, a
      territorial asset violently maintained by a mission force composed of
      3rd category Jews. In fact, there is no geographical centre to the
      Zionist endeavor. It is hard to determine where the centre of Zionist
      decision making is. Is it in Jerusalem? In the Knesset, in Sharon's
      cabinet, in the Mossad, or maybe in the ADL offices in America? It
      might as well be somewhere in Wall Street? Who knows?



      But then, it is of course more than possible that there is no decision
      making process at all. The beauty of a network operative system is
      that not a single operator within the network is fully familiar with
      the network but is only aware of his personal role within it. This is
      probably the biggest strength of the Zionist movement.



      Looking at Zionism as a global network operation would determine a
      major shift in our perspective of current world affairs:

      The Palestinians, for instance, aren't just the victims of the Israeli
      occupation, they are rather the victims of 3rd category Jews who
      decided to transform Palestine into a Jewish national bunker. The
      Iraqis, are better seen as the victims of the those 3rd category Jews
      who decided to transform the American army into a Jewish mission
      force. The Muslim world should be seen as a subject to some
      neo-conservative 3rd category tendency to make Nathan Sharansky's
      Democratic ideology into the new American Bible for the 3rd world.


      It is pretty depressing indeed.



      The Jewish humanist



      The Palestinian activist Reem Abdehadi, when asked for her opinion
      about Jewish anti Zionist campaigners, said sarcastically: "they are
      very nice, all fifteen of them…"



      We must admit that not many Jews are there to fight against Zionism.
      However, amongst those few who engage themselves in this battle we
      find some people who insist upon doing so under the Jewish banner,
      e.g. Jews Against Zionism, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, etc.



      While writing this paper I have started to ask myself what category
      those Jewish leftist groups belong to. Clearly, they do not fit into
      the 1st category. Jewish left is a `religious' atheist tendency. They
      really don't like to involve God in politics or in anything else. In
      most cases they are hostile to Judaism and even to those Orthodox Jews
      who happen to stand up to Zionism. But it isn't only Judaism that they
      dislike. They aren't fond of Islam or Christianity either. Those
      amongst them who endorse the idea of a one state solution do insist
      that the future Palestine must be `a secular' and a democratic state'.
      Not that I am in any position to suggest what the future Palestine is
      going to be, I would just try to propose that it must be down to the
      citizens of this future state to decide what type of kingdom they
      prefer to live in.



      Anyhow, those Jewish leftists fail as well to fit into the 2nd
      category. They do not regard themselves as ordinary humanists who
      happen to be of Jewish descent. If they were, they would simply join
      the Palestinian Solidarity movement like other Jews who prefer to act
      mainly as humanists. But then, rather than joining the Solidarity
      Campaign, they form some exclusive political cells that allow them to
      operate under the Jewish banner.



      Consequently, we must admit that they all belong to the 3rd category.
      In fact they prefer to regard themselves as `Jews who hold some
      leftist views'. Clearly, amongst those groups you will find some
      wonderful people who genuinely believe that Zionism is wrong, that
      Zionism is racist and nationalist. But in fact these people are
      themselves operating as 3rd category Jews. They all act politically
      under a Jewish banner. In practical terms, they all follow Weizmann's
      school. Rather than being Humanists who happen to be Jewish (2nd
      category), they are Jews who happen to be Humanists. But then, since
      acting politically under a Jewish banner is in fact the very
      definition of Zionism, it is reasonable to deduce that all Jewish left
      activity is in practice not more than a form of left Zionism. One may
      ask whether it is really possible to be a left Zionist? Is there left
      and right in a network group that is set primarily on a racial
      category and clannish brotherhood?



      The answer is no. There is no left and right within Zionism but rather
      different right wing political apparatuses. Some Zionist political
      calls are adopting the shape of left discourse. I had noticed for
      instance that Jewish Marxists insist upon calling each other comrade.
      In fact they are mainly engaged in Marxist verbal rituals. But
      apparently, this isn't enough. Ideology is more than a mere language
      game. In reality, those Jewish left clubs are operating as the body
      shield of the 3rd category identity. This may explain the fact that as
      far as the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign is concerned, those groups
      are primarily engaged in guarding some 3rd category Jewish interests
      that have very little to do with the Palestinians and their daily misery.



      If to be more precise, those Jewish left groups are engaged mainly in
      searching for `anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and Jew haters.
      Somehow, they always find them amongst the most active and devoted 2nd
      category Jews. As it seems (to me at least), for these Jewish sporadic
      cells, Palestinian solidarity is just another instrument to draw
      attention to the myth of Jewish humanism. I will try to be very clear
      and transparent here. There is no Jewish secular humanism. No
      doubt many humanists happen to be Jewish and yet there is not a single
      Jewish secular humanist theorem or text.[6] This is mainly because
      Jewish secularity is not a philosophical position. It is rather a
      complete abandonment of God. Jewish secularity is a form of ethnicity
      based merely on some exclusive tendencies and a vague collective
      memory of some ritual heritage.



      So, is there a Jewish Conspiracy to run the world?



      Not really. First it must be clear that 1st and 2nd category Jews have
      nothing to do with all the above. For 1st category Jews, being Jewish
      means practicing Judaism. To follow a spiritual call and to obey God's
      law. As we know, Zionism is still far from being popular amongst ultra
      orthodox Rabbis. However, I must admit that some would rightly argue
      that following the teaching of the Talmudic law many religious Jews do
      regard themselves as a chosen category. For me, this simply means that
      they fall into the 3rd category rather than the 1st one. This
      probably applies to the orthodox sects that allied with Zionism
      throughout the
      course of time.


      The second category Jews have no intention of taking part in any
      global Jewish networking. They regard themselves as an ordinary and
      liberated human beings with no special privilege. Amongst the 2nd
      category Jews we find the most enlightening emancipated humanists.
      Those very great intellects that contributed to 20th century liberal
      and humanist thinking. As we all know, hardly any of them came from
      Israel or a Zionist faction.



      When it comes to the 3rd category, we are faced with a slight problem.
      I tend to believe that the 3rd category Jews are mutually acting
      together. But then whether they are fully aware of it or not is a big
      question. Throughout the years they have formed a network that
      operates as a global Zionist body shield. They simply act in harmony,
      they protect each other. Even when they fight against one another,
      they depict an image of pluralism. I think that this is the essence of
      Zionism's miraculous success.



      A week ago I read a brilliant insight by Rowan Berkeley on
      Peacepalestine website. Rowan, a Londoner whom I know vaguely, had
      been flirting in the past with the idea of becoming a Jew. In the
      following comment he is aiming to explain the common Jewish take on
      Zionism. In fact, without realising it, he describes the 3rd category
      tactic:



      "First they ask, Do you believe that (Jewish) Nationalism is a Good
      Thing, or a Bad Thing?

      If you say it is a Good Thing, they will direct you to the Jewish
      Right, which will tell you that Jews have as much of a right to be
      nationalistic as anybody else does.

      If you say it is a Bad Thing, they will direct you to the Jewish Left,
      which will tell you that you are not allowed to protest against
      Zionism on any basis other than Marxist or Anarchist Proletarian
      Internationalism - thus disqualifying almost all the actually existing
      anti-Zionist movements in the Arab world.

      They can get away with this ideological shell game because each
      individual discursive arena is controlled by one or another Jewish
      faction."[7]



      Yes, I do believe that Rowan's insight hits the nail right on the
      head. He is absolutely correct. But then, unlike Rowan I do believe
      that Jews Against Zionism are genuine. They simply fight Zionism
      without realising that they themselves are Zionists. Without realising
      that they are the most orthodox followers of Weizmann's school. If
      they are really interested in bringing Zionism down, their tactics are
      obviously wrong.



      I wrote to some of them about the subject before, I have seen some
      discussion about my views in many different Jewish left circles and
      yet, I have never come across any argumentative response from any of
      those sporadic exclusive groups. Rather than being confronted with my
      thoughts, they are solely engaged in labeling. I have already been: `a
      self hating Jew', `a Christian fundamentalist', `a Holocaust denier',
      `an apologist for Holocaust deniers', `a neo-nazi', `a Stalinist', `a
      Zionist agent', `an anti-Semite' and many more.



      Two weeks ago, a small group of Jewish leftists picketed against me in
      front of a Marxist bookshop. I tried to write to them arguing that if
      Palestine is on top of one's agenda, a protest in front of the Israeli
      embassy or any other 3rd category Jewish institute would be far more
      effective. They dismissed my call.



      I am fully aware of the fact that crucifying me and burning my books
      is no doubt a proper 3rd category practice, but unfortunately it isn't
      going to help the Palestinian at the checkpoint. It isn't going to
      help the millions of refugees who have been living for almost six
      decades without elementary rights.



      Israel is an inhuman political setup and we therefore must fight it as
      human beings rather than as sporadic ethnic or religious groups.

      ===

      Smear Piece on Gilad Atzmon in the London Times:


      How did the far Left manage to slip into bed with the Jew-hating Right?
      David Aaronovitch
      June 28, 2005
      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22369-1671715,00.html



      WHEN I WAS YOUNG, smug centrists used to tell me that the extremes of
      Right and Left would, extended far enough, meet somewhere round the
      back. And I never quite believed it. But here's a story that seems to
      suggest that it really can happen. Indulge me . . .

      First a recapitulation. The Respect Party of George Galloway famously
      turned in the best performance by a far-Left party since the
      Communists won two seats in 1945. Respect itself is mostly - though
      not entirely - a front for the semi-Trotskyist organisation called the
      Socialist Workers' Party, or SWP. SWP members made up just under half
      of Respect's candidates, SWP activists form the party's main cadre and
      it is the SWP that drives the strategy, tactics and political platform
      of Respect.

      When I was at college, the local SWP used to drive around in minibuses
      looking for members of the far Right to beat up. In those days the
      party had an uncompromising attitude towards those it decided were
      'racists and fascists', throwing politicians such as Sir Keith Joseph
      into an adjacent sub-category and trying to get them banned from
      making speeches.

      Next week the SWP begins the annual festival at which members,
      supporters and friends are spoken at and sung to on topics
      revolutionary and progressive. Marxism 2005 features grizzled Trots
      from the 1970s, Tony Benn, George Galloway, a poet or two and, for the
      third year running, billed at No 13 on the speaker's list, a chap
      called Gilad Atzmon.

      And that's where the trouble starts. Atzmon is a well-known
      jazz-musician, an Israeli-born Jew and - as the SWP has previously
      described him - also a deliverer of 'fearless tirades against
      Zionism'. But the tirades have got him into trouble with more than
      just the Jewish community. A Palestinian musician told me a couple of
      years ago that she would no longer work with Atzmon because, in her
      opinion, he was 'an anti-Semite'. He had, somewhere, crossed the line.

      In 2003, for instance, Atzmon, who makes many speeches and runs a very
      substantial website, said this about the idea of a global Jewish plot:
      "We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are
      trying to control the world very seriously."

      Why? Because "American Jewry makes any debate on whether the Protocols
      of the Elders of Zionitic forgery are an authentic document or rather
      a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by
      proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least."

      So, he's a silly boy advancing slightly dangerous arguments (or
      "fearless tirades"). And we might take no notice. It's just that
      Atzmon does get about a bit - gigs, meetings, university debates, and
      yet one of his heroes is an author and activist, Israel Shamir.

      According to Atzmon, "Shamir is a very civil and peaceful man and
      probably is the sharpest critical voice of "Jewish power" and
      Zionist ideology."

      I first came across Shamir after I'd made a programme for Channel 4 on
      anti-Semitism in Islamic countries. In it I'd pointed out how the
      "blood libel", the slanderous accusation that Jews killed gentiles
      for the blood, had travelled from medieval Europe to the Middle East.
      But was it slander? Shamir, who claims to be a Russian Jew from Jaffa,
      wrote a long article in response arguing that the Jews probably were
      guilty of kidnapping Christian children and drinking their blood. I
      was more than amazed.

      Shamir both buys the world plot and has some very strange allies.
      "For as long," he wrote, "as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie
      Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today,
      Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of
      funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of (David)
      Duke, (Justin) Raimondo, (Pat) Buchanan, (Horst) Mahler, (Nick)
      Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists."â For those who
      don't know, Mahler is ex-Baader Meinhof turned neo-Nazi, David Duke is
      a former leader of Ku Klux Klan and Nick Griffin is our very own
      Welshpool Duce.

      And despite warnings about his true identity as a Swedish fascist,
      Shamir sits on the 16-person board of advisers of the international
      pro-Palestinian campaign organisation, Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR),
      named after a Palestinian village destroyed and ethnically cleansed in
      1948 by the Zionist terror groups, Irgun and the Stern gang. DYR
      organises events that many of the great and good of the
      pro-Palestinian movement attend.

      As it happens the Jewish UK Director of DYR, Paul Eisen, is a fan of
      Shamir's, describing him as a man "who has no trouble whatsoever in
      calling a Jew a Jew . . ."

      And Eisen is of Atzmon and Shamir's mind concerning Jewish power. Last
      year he expressed the view that Jewish influence in America was "not
      over its muscle and sinew but over its blood and its brain . . . Lists
      abound (though you have to go to some pretty unpopular websites to
      find them) of Jews, prominent in financial and cultural life."

      It seems to have been on one of these "unpopular websites" that Eisen
      made a fatal connection. He discovered the site of one Ernst Zundel.

      "Zundel," wrote Eisen, "is a gentle, good-humoured man . . . Zundel
      understands people and . . . he understands history." Zundel, a
      German-born Canadian, is not just a modern saint, but also the
      distributor of the booklet, Did Six Million Really Die? And a
      co-publisher of the rather heroically titled, The Hitler We Loved and Why.

      In an article published last December Eisen explained what he'd learnt
      from kindly Ernst. "No one is able to show us, at Auschwitz or
      anywhere else," argued Eisen, "even one of these chemical
      slaughterhouses. No one is capable of describing to us their exact
      appearance or workings. Neither a trace nor a hint of their existence
      is to be found . . . Nor would it be the first time that Jews have
      accepted and propagated stories, true, false or a mixture of both, of
      their suffering."

      It was Eisen on the Holocaust that sent the balloon up for Atzmon at
      Marxism 2005. Because Atzmon firstly circulated Eisen's
      Holocaust-denying article, then told critics defiantly that, "my take
      on the subject is slightly different than Paul's one". "For me,"
      Atzmon continued, cretinously, "the Holocaust like any other
      historical narrative is a dynamic process of realisation and
      interpretation."

      Not a few left-wing Jews who style themselves "anti-Zionist" have
      been horrified by the Atzmon-Eisen-Shamir business. And a couple of
      weeks ago they began to exert pressure on the SWP to disinvite the
      over-fearless tirader. But the SWP - it of "smash racism" - has
      refused. The party issued a statement. It was, it admitted, a bit
      worried about Atzmon, because: "We think that some of the formulations
      on his website might encourage his readers to feel that he is blurring
      the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism." But, it
      nevertheless concluded: "We do not believe that Gilad should be
      "banned" from performing or speaking. "No Platform" is a principle
      that the Left has always reserved for fascists and organised racists."

      There are a couple of questions left begging there. Are the readers,
      in the SWP's usually magisterial and definite opinion, right to "feel"
      that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is being
      blurred, or not? And is Atzmon being exempted from banishment because
      he is merely a disorganised racist?

      Or is it that an influential section of the far Left has, in this
      instance and on this issue, completely and disgracefully lost its
      political and moral compass?


      Letters can be sent to:

      david.aaronovitch @ thetimes.co.uk
      online.editor @ timesonline.co.uk

      ===
      Some discussion on the topic:

      In a message dated 6/25/2005 8:19:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

      Tony: As Paul Simon (yes I know he is Jewish) wrote, a man hears what
      he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Redress have now sent me a
      statement which clarifies the posting on their list. It begins:

      "We oppose unequivocally all forms of racism, whether anti-Jewish or
      white supremacist or anti-Arab or anti-anyone-else. As stated in our
      article, there is no room for any racists of any kind within the
      Palestine solidarity movement."

      This is not a statement that Shamir or his supporters can sign up to
      in good faith. Shamir writes a lot about Jewry where I would be much
      more careful to use the term ethnic Ashkenazim and provide a proper
      historical, sociological, and anthropological context.

      Joachim: Yet if one uses my careful terminology, which is a statement
      of the obvious, one is attacked as an anti-Semite, an identity
      Christian, and a purveyor of wacked-out analysis even though I never
      write or say anything very different from what Professors Shaye Cohen,
      Harris, Twersky, Stanislawski, Geary or Judt have taught at Harvard,
      Columbia, UCLA or NYU.

      Shamir takes Zionist and ethnic Ashkenazi self-description at face
      value, where I do not. In the intellectual struggle with racists,
      Zionists and Nazis, I take the position that understanding what they
      say and why can only help and strengthen the progressive movement.

      Sifre Deuteronony says, "Hatokhehah meviah lidei shalom." Correction
      leads to peace. But turnabout is fairplay, and I can understand why
      someone might prefer to use the terminology and statements of the
      enemy against him. That is the reason we are utterly opposed to the
      presence of the Shamirites within the Palestine Solidarity movement.
      Those who share a bed with holocaust deniers Zionists purvey a largely
      false history and perspective on the Holocaust because they can then
      accuse anyone that doubts of anti-Semitism and confirm their sick
      paranoia to justify even more outrages against Palestinians..
      or people like David Duke of the KKK or associate with white
      supremacists and neo-Nazis have no place in the Palestine Solidarity
      movement. White racists used to play this game of putting a litmus
      test on who were legitimate supporters or spokesmen for black rights
      in the USA. MLK was okay. Malcolm X was not. Ralph Abernathy was.
      Stokley Carmichael was not. It is a pile of crap.

      Ethic Ashkenazim, who like Greenstein spew a false Zionist and
      self-serving version of the history of Eastern European Ashkenazim, or
      like Maccoby, who refuses to denounce her father's ignorant and racist
      writings that constitute a corpus of ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism,
      certainly do not have any rights to determine who may be legitimate
      participant in the struggle for Palestinian rights. Lies and
      distortions are the usual accompaniment of a neo-Nazi and Shamir lives
      down to all our expectations. For example:

      i. JPUK, contrary to Shamir's assertions, and of which I am not a
      member, is hardly Trotskyite. Left-liberal at best I'd describe it.
      I would not have described the JPUK as Trotskyite, but then I would
      not have described Neoconservatism as Trotskyite in origin, and
      Greenstein has no problem with flinging around epithets like fascist
      or Nazi meaninglessly while he gets in bed metaphorically with someone
      like Deborah Maccoby, who has spotless ethnic Ashkenazi Nazi
      credentials. If racist ethnic Ashkenazim can sling names like fascist
      and Nazi without meaning, why can't Shamir toss in an accusation of
      Trotskyitism here and there?

      Tony: ii. Following on from the above, there will of course be
      massive differences in the 'worldview' of anti-Zionists and supporters
      of the Palestinians, but there is unanimity that this does not equate
      to attacks on diasporah Jewish communities.

      Joachim: You have to be doing serious drugs to question the role of
      ethnic Ashkenazi communities in the US and UK in providing criminal
      Zionist colonizers with a sort of strategic depth to manipulate policy
      and discourse about Zionism and Palestine.

      I recommend everyone to visit the local synagogue to attend a few
      Israel advocacy or Islam demonizations sessions to get a sense of
      ethnic Ashkenazi racist self-indoctrination as well as of the
      distributed system of planning and coordination that racist Ashkenazim
      employ in manipulating US and UK politics.

      Tony: On the contrary there is nothing Sharon would love more than for
      such attacks to happen, because he can then cry 'anti-Semitism' and
      benefit from the resulting emigration. If Shamir even bothered once
      to listen to what is actually happening, he will know that Sharon did
      exactly this in France last year and was slapped down by leaders of
      the French Jewish community. I repeat - anti-Semitism is the best
      friend and ally of Zionism.

      Joachim: So we are not allowed to condemn ethnic Ashkenazi Americans
      or ethnic Ashkenazi British when they traitorously work for Zionist
      interests to the harm of the US or UK. So when can we condemn
      disloyal traitorous racist Ashkenazi Americans and British?
      Greenstein is the epitome of ethnic Ashkenazi manipulator of the
      pro-Palestinian movement to the benefit of maintaining ethnic
      Ashkenazi privilege (in this case the right to be beyond criticism).

      Tony: iii. Where organisations of diasporah Jewish communities, like
      the Board of Deputies of British Jews give public support to Israel,
      we have no hesitation in POLITICALLY criticising them, not as Jews but
      as reactionary Zionist shits.

      Joachim: But reactionary Zionist shits apparently do not include those
      like Greenstein and Maccoby that try to manipulate the Palestinian
      Solidarity Movement into buying into the Zionist Holocaust narrative
      that justifies the theft of Palestine, genocide of Palestinians
      (according to the Lemkin definition) and ongoing Zionist crimes
      against the native population throughout Stolen and Occupied Palestine.

      Tony: iv. There is no link between any of the aforementioned
      anti-Zionists or Palestinian supporters and the Anti-Defamation
      League. This is merely another example of Shamir's conspiracy view of
      the world.

      Joachim: Yeah, right. There is no link except identical mentalities.
      If Greenstein and Maccoby were not racist ethnic Ashkenazim trying to
      subvert the Palestine Solidarity Movement, as ethnic Ashkenazim they
      could aid the movement best not by attacking Holocaust deniers but by
      demanding a public examination of the uses and abuses to which
      Zionists put the Holocaust narrative.

      When I became interested in trying to understand the chronology of the
      Holocaust because of various controversies over Revisionist claims, I
      found two connected but distinct mass murders of Jews during WW2.

      The Slavic mass murders of Jews started first, but this time sequence
      did not become common if unassimilated knowledge until Gross published
      Sasiedzi (Neighbors). Many members of the various Slavic populations
      in Eastern Europe were afraid of or angry with co-territorial ethnic
      Ashkenazi populations because of the mass murders in which ethnic
      Ashkenazi Communist officials took part in the early consolidation
      phases of the Soviet Union and because of the aid that Eastern
      European Ashkenazim outside the Soviet Union provided in the creation
      of the Soviet Economy.

      Nazi leaders probably only began to realize genocide was feasible when
      they saw the willingness of Slavic and other populations in the region
      either to engage in unjustified but somewhat understandable collective
      revenge or to undertake inexcusable preventative attacks and mass
      murder on ethnic Ashkenazim. This sort of behavior is a pattern of
      evil that we see in Eastern Europe and the Balkans to this day and in
      which Israel -- which is after all a transplanted Eastern European
      culture (Umpflanzung and Umvolkung all in one so to speak) -- engages
      before our eyes.

      The focus on the Western transports of Jews in Zionist Holocaust
      narrative should be analyzed.

      There were not many Jews in Western Europe. Most of the murdered Jews
      were from the East. I can speculate that a narrative that included
      the murders of Eastern European Ashkenazim might mention of the crimes
      in which many ethnic Ashkenazim engaged during the teens, twenties and
      thirties and thus might interfere with the idea of justifying the
      theft of Palestine as compensation to victims of the "worst" crime in
      history.

      Also, US cold war propaganda needed to portray captive nations during
      the Cold War as pure victims. Rallying support against the Soviet
      Union might have been more difficult if the role of Slavic and other
      Eastern Europeans in murdering ethnic Ashkenazim without incitement
      from Germans was better known. It made sense to blame all the crimes
      of the period on defeated Germans. (To be fair to honest historians
      that got sucked into dubious forms of the Holocaust narrative, a lot
      of valuable historical information only became available in the West
      with the fall of the Soviet Union.)

      Tony: The best way of ensuring maximum unity is the political
      isolation of the anti-Semitic Eisen/Shamir Deir Yassin Remembered group.

      Joachim: Ethnic Ashkenazim that support the Palestinian demand for
      justice can help the most by denouncing racist tribalist ethnic
      Ashkenazim like Greenstein and Maccoby that pretend to support
      Palestinians only for the purpose of subverting any activities that
      would undermine ethnic Ashkenazi privilege either in Palestine or in
      the US or the in the UK.


      Tony Greenstein
      Jews Against Zionism (personal capacity)

      Joachim Martillo

      Joachim: BTW, because Zionists (ethnic Ashkenazi Nazis) use the term
      Jew the way German Nazis used the term Aryan, I tend to view groups
      with names like Jews Against Zionism as skeptically as I would have
      viewed an organization with a name like Aryans Against Nazism during
      the 1930s and 1940s. Nevertheless, there is a need to create a forum
      for anti-Zionist ethnic Ashkenazim to denounce and combat Zionism just
      as there was a need in the 1930s and 1940s for anti-Nazi Germans
      publicly to take an explicit stand against German Nazism. I have
      created a mailing list, Ethnic Ashkenazi Against Zionist Israel
      [EAZI], for those Ashkenazim and interested non-Ashkenazim to develop
      a course of action to undermine the Zionist enterprise at its most
      basic principles. If you are interested in joining, send me an email.
      thorsprovoni @ aol.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.