Gilad Atzmon: 3rd Category Jews
- The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement
Friday, July 1, 2005
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
3. those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other
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."
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?...." 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.
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." 
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.
"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. 
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
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."
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,
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. 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
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
"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
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
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?
June 28, 2005
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Jews Against Zionism (personal capacity)
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