'Go Back to Tel Aviv' the Zionism of Atzmonism
I can’t say I’ve ever heard of Colin Bell but he wrote to me at an e-mail address associated with this blog, but which I rarely use. So there was a delay in responding. He asked me what I had to fear from Atzmon and I replied nothing but that wasn’t a reason for not opposing him. I have to admit I was brusque with him, since he has an obsession about ‘Jewishness’.
It is also clear, despite trying to teach him, that he knows nothing about Zionism if he queries whether Lord Shaftesbury, a key Evangelical Christian in Britain, was a Zionist. Herzl only held his conference in 1897 so he couldn’t have been! In fact the 1st Aliyah took place in 1882 following the Odessa pogrom amongst others in Czarist Russia in 1881 and the formation of Hovvei Zion by Leon Pinsker. In fact the first Zionist pamphlet was not Herzl’s der Judenstaat in 1895 but Moses Hess’s Rome & Jerusalem in 1862.
Of course there was no reason by Bell should know this but since he didn’t he should go off and read a little before spouting his Atzmonite nonsense. Zionism didn’t just spring out of Herzl’s head. It was a movement or political current that had been steadily growing throughout the 19th century, mainly at the urging of non-Jews.
There is a good chapter ‘The Forerunners’ in Walter Lacquer’s History of Zionism on the origins of Zionism. In 1839 a series of articles in The Globe, a London newspaper which was the ‘mouthpiece’ of the Foreign Office and Palmerston, advocated Jewish settlement in the region of Syria and Palestine. In 1862, quite by coincidence, another Zionist pamphlet Drishat was written by one of the first religious Zionists, Rabbi Kalischer. In 1870 the agricultural school of Mikveh Yisrael was formed, and was where a famous (photoshopped!) photograph of Herzl and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II was taken (see Desmond Stewart’s excellent biography of Herzl for details). In 1882 the first settlement of the Biluim, taken from the verse in the Bible ‘rise O house of Jacob.’
The point is that the religious intonation, ‘next year in Jerusalem’ said every Passover, was just a spiritual longing which meant, as Bernard Lazarre, the famous Dreyfusard and anarchist, who broke with Herzl, a desire to be free. It was given political significance by Zionism.
However if you are a simple Atzmonite then all this is besides the point. It’s all to do with ‘Jewishness’ and has no connection with the real world. So we have Colin Bell on the one hand wittering on about ‘Jewishness’ and how terrible Zionism is and the other hand telling me, like the good anti-semite he is, to ‘go back to Tel Aviv’ despite the fact that I’ve only been there once, over 40 years ago!
This is though a good example of how anti-Semitism and Zionism are like siamese twins, each dependent on the other.
From: tony greenstein
To: Colin Bell
Your last comment, that I 'should go back to Tel Aviv' confirms that you are a racist and an anti-semite, since I have never lived in Israel. So being Jewish means I should 'go back' to Israel. This was of course the slogan of the fascists in the '30's and of course many Jews did exactly that. The consequence being the establishment of the Israeli state.
So, as with your mentor, Gilad Atzmon, when I scratch the surface out comes a Zionist who believes all Jews should 'go to Tel Aviv'. And like all Atzmon supporters you have nothing to contribute or say apart from your obsession with Jewishness.
I won't however return the compliment of accusing you of working for Mossad or under cover since it is obvious you are too thick for even the stupidest 'intelligence' agency to make much use of.
Your comments are a textbook example of how anti-semitism morphs into Zionism and so I shall distribute this widely in order that people can see a real living example and blog on it later.
Probably your only moment of fame in an otherwise useless life.
From: Colin Bell
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Thu, 2 June, 2011 19:46:50
Subject: Re: zionism = racism
As a final word Mr Greenstein,
My interaction with you has confirmed to me that you are a fraud.
I think you are 'working under cover' ?
How do you afford the lifestyle you lead unless you are being financed by someone ?
Mossad perhaps ?
The positions you take up over Israel etc are very inconsistent.
Go back to Tel Aviv Mr Greenstein.
On 31 May 2011, at 03:27, tony greenstein wrote:
I will answer in coloured print.
I will answer your questions and then finish !
In your previous response you said that you 'spoke as a Jew' at the Unison National Conferences of 2008, & 2009.
Why 'as a Jew' ? Why not as 'a concerned human being' ?
Because unlike you I wished to see the motion passed and to defeat the Zionists' arguments. It was a collective decision. It was rather a good way of visibly defeating Zionist accusations of 'anti-semitism.' Most conference delegates thought so too. Hence why it was done today at the UCU Conference where an extremely important motion (see blog) was passed. The difference between us is that you are more preciously concerned with abstract notions of what is proper rather than wishing to take the struggle forward.
Thuggery and brutality against the Palestinians is as nasty as thuggery and brutality against any group of people
your statement suggests it is somehow 'different', but that 'even a Jew' [such as yourself] is concerned at the level of suffering of the Palestinians
as if you somehow deserve 'extra kudos' for this [more than say if I were to express concern - as a non-Jew]
I am not interested in your interpretations, but they are nonetheless wrong
I am not wishing to enter into a competition with you
My perception is that Jewish people [typically] stress their Jewishness at every opportunity
Gilad seems to me to be questioning this 'separation mindset'
I think it needs to be questioned
Your defence of anything 'Jewish' is extreme and aggressive
and sounds to me to be remarkably similar to the tactics employed by apologists for Israel
ie. NO-ONE is allowed to question anything Jewish - unless they themselves are Jewish.
I have never said that and my questioning is far more effective than your hero worship of Atzmon.
Isn't that 'setting yourself apart' ?
Do you believe that the state of Israel 'has a right to exist' ?
I don't accept that any state has the 'right' to exist. It's not a human being but I've never accepted the right of a 'Jewish' State to exist. That should have been obvious to you.
because if you do; you are a zionist [ of some sort]
I do not mean that I think Israel will suddenly just disappear
I am questioning its 'RIGHT to exist'
When one considers the way it came into being I do not accept that it has a right to exist
[I do nonetheless accept that it is a 'fact on the ground']
I am not questioning the right of Jewish people to co-exist in the land of Palestine
You like to enlist famous names Mr Greenstein
I am not quite sure what Bob Dylan has got to do with anything, he seems to be quite a 'free spirit' to me;
it seems that you are the Zionist since Dylan is and has been consciously aiding the Zionist movement, not least by his breaking of the cultural boycott, which Atzmon also opposes.
I am not sure that Lord Shaftesbury was really a zionist [I realize that some say he was]
unfortunately he died some 12 years BEFORE the political movement of zionism was created [ie. 1897] which creates certain problems when it comes to labelling him 'a zionist'.
Your ignorance creates no problem. The first Aliya (wave of immigration) to Palestine was that of the Biluim in 1882 and Hovvei Zion was formed in 1881 and Rishon Le Zion, the first settlement in 1871.
When extremist christians use christian symbols as their 'moniker', I think it is a reasonable question for someone to then ask "what exactly is meant by 'christian' ?"
No what you ask, if indeed you bother, is what THEY mean by Christian.
The same applies to 'Jewish'.
You are too defensive Mr Greenstein; you could 'loosen' a bit
Are you saying that Jewish people [typically] do not claim to be 'the chosen people' ?
In certain situations they might, just as the Afrikaaners considered themselves chosen and the Blacks were the people of Ham. The question is what situation. Try reading a bit more widely about colonialism and then you will find out that all colonists thought of themselves as superior and therefore chosen and it therefore has nothing to do with the Jewish/Protestant/Catholic badge but to do with material circumstance.
Gilad is a bit 'provocative' at times but that is not always such a bad thing I do not understand why that annoys you to the extent that it does ?
I have never heard [or read] Gilad say anything in favour of zionism.
Clearly you haven't read my essay or closely enough. Try the essay on the Bund, where he is consistently favourable to Zionism or his favourable commentary on Antony Julius's attack on Jewish anti-Zionists (now why would the new President of the Board of Deputies write a long essay in 2 parts attacking us? just try thinking)
Can I join the 'Jewish anti-zionist Group' [as a non-Jew] ?
No. You are sympathetic to a racist and don't even recognise racism when it stares you in the face. Jewish groups are there to maximise support for the Palestinians, nothing more. We work with non-Jews and don't question as to why someone defines themselves as Jewish. Which is why people like Ghada Karmi and Sue Blackwell, who are not Jewish, attended our founding conference as equals.
I suspect not; then surely you are 'setting yourselves apart' ?
How can you give opinions 'as a Jew' when you contend that, as far as you are concerned, there is no such thing as 'Jewishness' ? I don't understand.
It's not the only thing u don't understand. Being Jewish isn't dependent on Atzmon's nonsensical racial formulation.
You say that Marx's writings on 'The Jewish Question' was 'a critique of the religion primarily'.
So presumably you are saying that 'there is more to 'Jewishness' than mere religion ?
Yet a few sentences before this you were asserting that "there is no such thing as 'Jewishness'", and that to suggest that there is is 'racist' !!?
Again, I do not understand.
You will understand more, assuming you understand it to begin with, if you read Abram Leon's 'Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation'. Then all your nonsense about 'Jewishness' and reducing being Jewish to an essentialist condition will fall into place. Religion reflects material surroundings and functions. The Jewish religion reflected the changed fortunes of Jews. As circumstances changed and the role of Jews changed, so did the religion. Try reading someone who knew something as opposed to an ignoramus like Atzmon who knows nothing.
What makes you feel so certain about 'how little aware Marx was of how the Jewish masses were becoming proletarianised and pauperised' ? How could you possibly know such a thing ?? Did you ask him ? [I am not quite sure what you mean by that anyway]
Because it is apparent from his essay that he only grasped this tenuously. There was no reason why he should have known anything about the mass of Jews in the Pales of Settlement. But Marxism is a form of analysis, a means of understanding the world, not in terms of bourgeois ideology or its fragments (like Jewishness). It isn't a bible. You quote Marx as if he wrote the Gospel but Marx always warned against this reification. Idolatry is for heathens.
Since I was mentioning the fact that Marx [the philosopher] was intrigued by the meaning of 'Jewishness' and you seem to hate Gilad for pondering the meaning of 'Jewishness' I don't see how my observation is 'out of context' it seems very relevant to me. If Gilad is worthy of hatred for his pondering; why not Marx ?
I don't hate Atzmon, I have contempt for him but that's different.
I don't agree with 'everything' that anyone says and that includes Gilad but I do not feel the need to hate them for expressing a different view than my own [I think that Gilad comes up with some very interesting observations] nor would I wish to 'intimidate them into silence' That smacks of 'fear' to me however much you wish to deny it.
I don't doubt that you find his meanderings interesting. I find them boring and unoriginal.
Finally, if you really do wish to see a secular state in Palestine for ALL the people then we are perhaps not so different.
I do not understand how the antics of you and your associates in attempting to 'close down' the talk on May 3rd in any way helped the Palestinian cause.
I don't recall trying to close down Atzmon's talk. All I did was expose the fact that a 'panel' to debate Atzmon's concept of Jewishness did nothing to support the Palestinians, quite the contrary and the academics on board seemed to agree.
Rather I think it attempted to re-inforce the notion that Palestine is a taboo subject
because the notion of 'Jewishness' is at the very heart of the project to colonize the land of Palestine Your thinking is too 'black and white' for me Mr Greenstein.
I suspect any thinking is a bit much for you Colin.
On 28 May 2011, at 17:41, tony greenstein wrote:
I've never said I was different because I'm Jewish. Quote where I've said that. This is part of the Atzmon poison. To make people take their eye off solidarity with the Palestinians and concentrate on Jews per se. It's a political ignorance that ends up in the fatuous statement of Atzmon that Zionism and the Israeli state have 'absolutely' nothing to do with colonialism. Presumably AJ Balfour (if you've heard of him), Palmerstone, Lord Shaftesbury and all the other imperialists from the mid-19th century onwards, were supportive of the 'Jews return to Palestine' because they were genuine romantics at heart.
And because the focus is on Jews and 'Jewishness' and colonialism is excused, there is really no need for a Boycott of Israel because it isn't Israel that is really responsible but diaspora Jews who control Israel. Oh yes, it's all in Atzmon's turgid writings but I doubt if you've read them either.
Atzmon may be posing some questions, but they are the wrong ones, and he is not a disinterested party but one keen on dividing the PS movement up into Jewish and non-Jewish. Or maybe it's debate that he is really after. Perhaps a debate on wh ether the holocaust occurred or whether we should use terms like 'socialist jewnity' and other little racist quips. No doubt we can have a debate on the 'n' word while we are at it. I prefer debating over matters of importance, not the racial fantasies of your hero.
Yes I know I could have fooled you. It's like taking candy from a kid, hence why it's not worth the effort.
There was no proscribing of the meeting. I couldn't care if it took place. We simply suggested to those who did have something to say, viz. the 2 academics who pulled out, that sharing a platform with Atzmon wasn't compatible with support for the Palestinians or opposition to Zionism. They seem to have agreed but I doubt you really understand the issues since debating Atzmon's obsessions is more important to you than solidarity.
Since I've never talked of a 'Jewish perspective' there is not much point arguing with you, since you invent things to find something to say. You are really a complete idiot. Either try reading what I say or go and find someone else to listen to your drivel. For the last time, being Jewish to me is only important when opposing racism - be it Zionism or any other form of racism. Period. Got that? Sunk in to your thick head?
And the reason why I tire of fools like you is you achieve nothing except to set back support for the Palestinians. Other than that you do nothing because you represent nothing. When some of us try to build the BDS movement in the trade unions we have to pretend that people like you don't exist because otherwise we would have great difficulty in building such support. It's bad enough with Palestinian quislings like Abbas but you don't even have his excuses.
I'm well aware, as I've already said, of what Marx wrote in the 1840's and indeed what Moses Hess wrote in the 1860's. But surprising as it may seem the world has changed since then and Jews who existed then have disappeared. Indeed they were already disappearing as feudalism gave way to capitalism in Eastern Europe. So if you are clinging to Marx I'd think again, he won't provide u with a liferaft.
Yes Jews were opposed to Zionism until the holocaust that Atzmon questions. I guess the murder of millions somewhat changed things. Surprising isn't it? Any other insights?
From: Colin Bell
To: tony greenstein
Sent: Sat, 28 May, 2011 11:41:47
Subject: Re: zionism = racism
I wish I could say that it was worth the wait. Unfortunately I can't. I never thought it would be so easy to dismantle your argument. Your response is unnecessarily convoluted, complex, and confused. This is why I contend that your whole position is actually a sham. You fail miserably to construct a coherent argument.
On the subject of 'Jewish identity'; the point is that you, and other Jewish people, set yourselves apart it doesn't come from me I am not saying that you are different because you are Jewish
you are the people who keep stressing the notion that you are so different and why are you different ? Because you are Jewish [according to you] Yet by some quirky thinking you come to the conclusion that everything is somehow coming from me !!?
In the talk on May 3rd Gilad was simply posing questions and seeking to debate possible answers That is how one conducts a discussion on anything or do you disagree ? Meanwhile you and your associates sought to 'proscribe' the meeting and yet you assert the idea that it is you and your friends who stand for 'freedom, and liberty' You could have fooled me.
At every turn you choose to interpret everything from 'a Jewish perspective' as opposed to the perspective of being 'just another human being' in other words from the confines of a 'closed club'
a club for which anyone who is not 'Jewish' is refused entry and you don't think that this is 'elitist' and 'racist' ? [I wonder; do you breathe 'Jewish air' ? or do you breathe the same air as the rest of us mere mortals ? we wouldn't want to contaminate you after all] Yet Gilad, because he questions this 'ghetto mentality' IS racist for doing so. I think you have got the 'cart before the horse' and if some previous speakers were so easily intimidated; that is their affair.
If most Jews opposed zionism [as you contend] there wouldn't be a 'Jewish state'.
Yes, I agree, zionism was/ is supported by other groups in the creation, and expansion, of their 'Jewish' project but these other groups don't run Israel do they ?
You profess to be an 'anti-zionist' and yet you use the self same language as the zionists in denouncing people who challenge your assertions. ie. 'Racist', 'anti-semite', and 'self-hater'.
Gilad wonders about the meaning of 'Jewishness' [as did Karl Marx] and you freely admit that you 'haven't got a clue' as to what 'Jewishness' is; yet you feel qualified to denounce him as a 'racist' for examining the possible meanings of such a concept !? That simply doesn't make sense.
[You seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that the 'raison d'etre' of 'project Israel' is that it is 'a Jewish state' so presumably 'Jewish' must mean something ? or do you disagree ?]
Marx wrote extensively on 'The Jewish Question' in 1843 and 1844, examining the meaning of 'Jewishness'. Among other things he questioned why mainstream christian society should concern itself with 'Jewish emancipation' when 'the inherent "partiality" of Judaism' is in complete contradiction with christian notions of 'universality'. Marx went on to conclude that 'the social emancipation of the Jew would be the emancipation of society from Judaism',
in other words Jewishness, by it's very nature, is both 'partial and exclusive' as opposed to 'universal and inclusive'.
That doesn't sound very different from what Gilad is saying to me. I think you need to re-read Marx [if indeed you have ever read him in the first place] Take down the barriers Mr Greenstein, we are not all savages out here. As for 'not suffering fools gladly'; I would stay away from the mirror !
On 27 May 2011, at 02:30, tony greenstein wrote:
It is true that I don’t suffer fools gladly and I am therefore somewhat impatient with those who don’t get it or refuse to get it at times. No matter let’s deal with the substance of your argument, such as it is.
Firstly as I’ve already said, a reply to my googlemail account won’t be picked up for days or more You say that ‘There was absolutely nothing 'racist' in what Gilad had to say during that talk.’ I wasn’t at the talk and I’ve only watched 20 minutes of his video but he did ask rhetorically, after rejecting the idea that Zionism had anything to do with colonialism ‘Is Zionism what it is. Because ‘Jews’ are what they are?’
Now how can you identify a whole group by virtue of religion/race/ethnicity as subscribing to one particular ideology? Not Israeli Jews or even a part thereof but all Jews. The fact that most Jews opposed Zionism when it first began and its most vociferous supporters were Christian seems lost on him. See So that is racist and anti-Semitic for a start.
You say that I am ‘a zionist bigot’, but of course offer no argument in support of that statement. So why am I a Zionist? Having opposed Zionism for over 40 years what is your basis for this silly assertion? Maybe it was moving a resolution calling for a unitary democratic secular state at the 1977 NUS Conference was the action of a ‘Zionist bigot’? Or maybe co-founding Palestine Solidarity Campaign? Or maybe it was forming the Labour Committee on Palestine which successfully moved an emergency motion to the 1982 Labour Party conference supporting a democratic secular state in Palestine? Or the countless times I have argued on campuses, stalls, meetings etc. against Zionism? Or the policies of the student union where I was Vice President or that of Sussex University and many other educational establishments where I have spoken at Union General Meetings?
Or perhaps it was speaking as a Jew, quite deliberately, at the 2008 and 2009 UNISON national conference in support of Boycott? The decision that I should speak as someone Jewish was a decision of the movers of the motion as a group.
I realise that my record probably doesn’t stand comparison with your magnificent record but that’s how the cookie crumbles. So tell me. Why am I a Zionist for supporting Boycott successfully in my union and Atzmon, who opposed the academic boycott is an anti-Zionist? And if you didn’t already know his opposition to the academic boycott was because those supporting it in UCU also oppose Atzmon’s anti-Semitism because they know, living in the real world, that anti-Semitism means death to support for the Palestinians in anything other than your little gatherings of conspiracy theorists.
And calling me a Zionist when I'm a Jewish anti-Zionist is in itself anti-Semitic. I'm sure even you can work that one out.
Jewish identity politics are no more tribal than any form of identity politics. Zionism is clearly tribal but so is Wahhabism. Likewise the Afrikaaners (clue – they were also settler colonists).
I’m not aware that Jewish anti-Zionists do set themselves apart. They are part of the general Boycott movement. Jews 4 Boycotting Israeli Goods started off the Ahava protest and in that they were joined by many others, but clearly not yourself. There’s nothing elitist in that.
Yes the symbols of Zionism are Jewish. Just as the symbol of Protestant supremacy in Ireland were Christian and the symbols of the American settlers were cowboy hats and wagons. The fact that Zionism has used Jewish religious symbolism doesn’t mean that those symbols were responsible for Zionism. I know it’s a difficult argument but you see, as Bob Dylan observed, every state or nation at war uses god on their side.
The fact that Zionism claims that it represents all Jews, except the ‘traitors’ and ‘self-haters’ (like the protesters who got beaten up at the Aipac conference heckling Netanyahu a couple of days go) doesn’t mean it does. For one thing there is also a Jewish identity that looks to traditions of Jewish anti-racism. Zionism may be a majority current among Jews worldwide but its grip is slowly loosening. There are other currents and in that sense it’s signficant that Atzmon rails against the Jewish Bund which represented the Polish Jewish masses and which was anti-Zionist. Atzmon actually welcomes the triumph of Zionism within world Jewry which is reason enough to suspect him. Atzmon represents a reflection of Zionist racism and claims this as an insight!
I haven’t claimed to be of any ‘chosen people’ and therefore don’t know what you are talking about. Zionists may make such a claim but I don’t.
What is Jewishness? Haven’t a clue. Atzmon is the one who uses the term not me. I suspect he means a metaphysical substance that binds all Jews together. It is an ingredient of his racist outpourings but I don’t recognise that there is any such thing.
I’m well aware of Marx’s essay On the Jewish Question. It was firstly in the context of a debate with Otto Bauer about why Jews should be granted equal rights and be emancipated. It was a critique of the religion primarily. Marx was very little aware of how the Jewish masses were becoming proletarianised and pauperised. Mere quotes out of context say little or nothing.
I’ve said what I stand for – a democratic, secular state in Palestine for all who live there. The question is rather what you stand for.
I'm copying this to the J-Big list as an example of the muddle and confusion of Atzmon's supporters.
What an aggressive attitude, and you are a 'friend' of Palestinians and a man who wants to make the world a better place ?? are you serious ? You are highly aggressive and extremely insulting to me, someone you have never met in your life I think you are a fraud. and I think you are 'pretending' to be anti zionist There was absolutely nothing 'racist' in what Gilad had to say during that talk only a zionist bigot [like you] would say otherwise
What Gilad is saying is that the 'tribalism' of Jewish identity politics leads them to consistently set themselves apart from everyone else. Everything is pretexted by 'Jewish' and there is a sort of 'elitism' involved in this. He questions why they feel the need to continually set themselves apart in this way ? As he said at the meeting, 'The symbols on the planes, tanks, etc., that bombarded Gaza, and the Lebanon were 'Jewish symbols' NOT 'zionist symbols'
or do you disagree ?
So to ask the question 'What exactly is 'Jewishness' ? seems like a fair question to me.
All this carnage is wrought in the name of 'Jewish' after all isn't it ? I think it is a very pertinent question; because if Jewish people continually stress the idea that they are somehow 'different' from the rest of us whilst simultaneously claiming to be the 'chosen' people .... they shouldn't be surprised when people view them as being different and a threat. [They seem to me to 'want to have their cake, and eat it' !!] This view of being different [never mind superior] is a form of 'class division' as far as I am concerned and I notice that the man most famous for his opposition to 'class division' [Karl Marx] wrote extensively on 'The Jewish Question' and the historic problems associated with Jewish 'partiality'; in both 1843 and 1844.
Marx questioned the notion of the 'effectively self-centred , internally cohesive, practical-empirical partiality of Jewishness'. He went on to equate 'the spirit of Judaism' with being 'the spirit of Capitalism'. My point is that Marx [as a radical philosopher] was intrigued by the 'meaning of Jewishness' in these writings. [check it out you leftie !!]
No doubt if Marx were alive today you would be accusing him of being 'dim', 'anti-semitic', and a 'racist' ? Yet you claim to be a 'man of the Left' ?? I think you [and many of your chums] are actually closet fascists; you want to tell everyone what to think. Well, not me Mr Greenstein.
I think what I want to think whether you like it or not. I look at and question whatever I want to look at and question; I do not take any notice of people like you. Why don't you 'come out of the closet' and reveal where you really stand ? What exactly is it that you are opposed to Mr Greenstein ? [or perhaps even more importantly; "What exactly do you stand FOR ?"]
PS. It took you long enough to respond.
You mistake fear for opposition. Both academics involved in the academic pulled out from speaking with this racist. A couple of minor figures were added but we didn't much care as we had made our point. No one with any reputation to defend will associate with a racist because people who are not as dim as you will understand that racism is not something likely to be of benefit to the Palestinians.
It is unfortunate that Atzmon's supporters are so thick
Dear Mr Greenstein,
Just for information; I attended the talk with Gilad Atzmon last night and ALL 3 of the billed panellists turned up, the debate went on for the whole of the alloted time and there were so many people at the meeting that some couldn't sit down (plus as we left we bumped into 4 people who hadn't been able to find the event - due to the fact that it had moved - there were probably more)
It was a very interesting discussion.
Perhaps you should buy Gilad's book 'The wandering who ?' Then you might understand what he is saying. Don't live your life in fear.