Gilad Atzmon Comes Out - Now an open anti-Semite

I am not a Jew anymore.  I despise the Jew in me. I absolutely detest the Jew in you.

This blog was set up in 2007 to combat the pernicious influence of Gilad Atzmon, who operated on the fringes of the Palestine solidarity campaign.  To me and others anti-Zionist Jews it was clear that Atzmon was, without doubt, anti-Semitic.  Unfortunately this wasn’t at all clear to many others in the movement.

The Socialist Workers Party in particular couldn’t see the light and for a long time defended Atzmon.   See for example Time to say goodbye Why does the SWP not break its links withholocaust-denier Gilad Atzmon? 

The anti-Semitic Jazzman

What was decisive in breaking the influence of Atzmon over many in the Palestine solidarity movement was the joint call by Ali Abunimah, Omar Barghouti, Joseph Massad and other Palestinians for the movement to dissociate itself from Atzmon.  Granting NoQuarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of GiladAtzmon

I had many long arguments with many people who just didn’t seem to get it.  Not just common and garden fools like Roy Ratcliffe of Exeter PSC, who composed lengthy treaties proving that the Eart was flat and Atzmon was an anti-racist  but people who had a much higher intellectual calibre.

For example Richard Falk, the distinguished professor and UN representative in Gaza, provided a  blurb for Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who.  In an email to me of 18 December 2011 Richard wrote ‘I appreciate some of the points and arguments that are made. Nevertheless, having re-read Atzmon's book and his responses to comparable lines of criticism I am not prepared to alter, much less renounce, my endorsement…. Atzmon may have pushed his basic argument too far, but it seems to me a valid inquiry that can lead to debate and discussion, but is not appropriate to denounce, and to go further, and denounce those who endorsed the reading of the book.’  

I found it frustrating that people like Richard Falk could not see what was in front of their eyes, but he was not alone.  The primary reason for the difficulty in persuading people that Atzmon was an anti-Semite was because of the determined efforts of the Zionist movement to equate all support for the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism as anti-Semitic.  It had indeed blurred the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, such that people could no longer tell the difference between the two.

As I wrote at the height of the controversy in Seamy Side of Solidarity 'Like the boy who cried wolf, the charge of "anti-semitism" has been made so often against critics of Zionism and the Israeli state that people now have difficulty recognising the genuine article.'

Falk had written that Atzmon’s book was "A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely."

Ramzy Baroud, Editor of the Palestine Chronicle wrote in the blurb of Atzmon's book, The Wandering Who that “Gilad Atzmon decided to open Pandora’s Box, and ignite a debate that has been frustratingly dormant for too long. His experiences are most authentic, views are hard-hitting, and, at times, provocative. It must be read and discussed.”  Ramzy Baroud is not stupid yet he too did not get it.

Professor John J. Mearsheimer of The Israel Lobby saw The Wandering Who as ‘Essential to an understanding of Jewish identity politics and the role they play on the world stage.’

The idiotic Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo splutterd that Atzmon’s book was "A pioneering work that deserves to be read and Gilad Atzmon is brave to write this book!"

Lauren Booth, Cherie Blair’s brain dead sister-in-law, wrote that “It is more than an academic exercise. It is a revelation!” Booth is clearly easily satisfied!

Eric Walberg of Al Aharam Weekly believed that ‘'In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” 

Jeff Blankfort an anti-Semite from the USA who used to be on the left, described Atzmon’s  book as "A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable."

One suspects Blankfort would have difficulty predicting a restaurant menu.

And Professor James Petras, who believes that the Israeli tail wages the American dog,  wittered on about how "Atzmon has the courage - so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals"

Karl Sabbagh wrote that ‘Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement is explosive.’  Quite how a vacuum can be explosive is best left to better minds than Sabbagh.

The unknown and best forgotten academic Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool wrote that  “Having known Gilad for 25 years, I read the book in English, I heard it in Hebrew and reflected on it in Arabic. Gilad Atzmon is astonishingly courageous” Makram Khoury-Machool has the ability to speak and read in 3 languages yet he is incapable of thinking in even one of them.

To the Israeli lecturer Oren Ben Dor, for whom the Holocaust is god's just revenge on the Jews, preordained in the thicket of his academic prose, Atzmon’s book was ‘A fascinating achievement”.

To Kim Petersen of the anti-Semitic Dissident Voice “Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Thus demonstrating above all that she is no intellectual.

For Dr. Kevin Barrett “Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time” in other words another false Messiah.

What these and other eulogies to the Atzmon's ego demonstrate is not merely the stupidity of so many academics, whose use of long words and complicated phrases is designed to mask their own superficiality, but how Atzmon managed to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes.

It was that which I found most frustrating.

David Taube of Harry's Place and Mike Ezra excuse Atzmon's anti-SemitismMany Zionists too were fascinated by Atzmon because he was repeating many of their tropes, not least that Zionism and Judaism were inextricably linked.   People like Mikey Ezra and David Taube of Harry’s Place were fascinated.  Taube described a jaunt that he and Mikey Ezra had gone on with Atzmon:

'Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon.  Mikey’s thoughts on Gilad and his worldview follow, below. 

‘Gilad was, I have to say, utterly charming and a delightful drinking companion....
Is Gilad Atzmon a racist? Not in the narrow sense of being preoccupied by genetic differences between people certainly. He is rather, I think, a ‘cultural essentialist’: if such a term exists.'  

You get that?  A cultural essentialist, not a racist!

But with his latest tweet, there can be no doubt about Atzmon’s anti-Semitism.

‘1.        I am not a Jew anymore.  2.  I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left).  3.  I absolutely detest the Jew in you.’

Arthur Topham - holocaust denier for whom Atzmon gave 'expert' evidence - KKK leader David Duke who wanted to give evidence was refused entry  into Canada

Last November Atzmon gave expert witness testimony (!) on behalf of Arthur Topham, an anti-Semite and holocaust denier, to a Canadian court.   Despite this Topham was convicted of racial hatred and is awaiting sentence.  

I have previously posted a compendium of Atzmon’s anti-Semitic sayings.  It can be found at:  A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman.  According to Atzmon, I am a Zionist because he too, like the Zionists, argues that any Jew who is politically active as a Jew must be a Zionist.

It is somewhat ironic that Atzmon is a fierce opponent of BDS.  For him it is a Jewish enterprise.  Atzmon makes a nasty, vicious attack on Omar Barghouti, who is facing the possibility of Israeli reprisals and deportation, despite being a long-standing Israeli resident.  In Omar Accomplished His Job, Omar Is Free To Go Atzmon says that 

'BDS was an Israeli controlled opposition maneuver.  For Israel, BDS presented the ideal front on which to fight. Instead of battling for a Palestinian Right Of Return, that is ethically solid and backed by UN resolutions, the solidarity movement was reduced to an internal Jewish debate over the “Right to BDS.”    

I just hope that Ramzy Baroud, Karl Sabbagh and co. have the honesty to admit that they made a mistake.

Mark Gardner of the Zionist 'charity' - the Communist Security Trust & the Southampton International Law Conference

CST's Mark Gardner Dishonestly Quotes Me to Support the Banning of Southampton International Law Conference

My attention has been drawn by Gert and Brian Robinson to the use by Mark Gardner of the Zionist ‘charity’ the Communist Security Trust of certain comments I made regarding Oren ben-Dor, the Southampton University lecturer who has helped organise the Israel and International Law Conference.

The comments which I made, some 7 years ago, were in the context of ben-Dor’s support for Gilad Atzmon. 

Oren ben-Dor

Gardner quotes selectively from a much longer post to support the decision of Southampton University to ban a conference on Israel and International Law from being held on campus.  The reason it has been banned is because of health and safety concerns, i.e. Zionist threats of violence.

When the UCU won an employment tribunal against a Zionist academic Gardner
called the Tribunal members 'sneering bastards'

I want to make it clear that there is no connection between the Conference at Southampton University and my previous criticism of Oren ben-Dor.  Mark Gardner is being his usual hypocritical and dishonest self in seeking to associate the two.  There is no connection and Oren ben-Dor is, in any event, one of four organisers of the Conference.  More pertinent has been the failure of the CST to oppose the EDL's presence on Zionist demonstrations.

In a blog post I stated that:

‘Oren Ben-Dor is an ex-Israeli and a law lecturer at the University of Southampton. He is also someone who has aligned himself with a small, anti-Semitic current on the fringes of the Palestinian movement.’ 

Having subsequently met Oren Ben-Dor I formed the opinion that he was clearly misguided regarding Atzmon but was not personally anti-Semitic.  If anything he was taken in by Atzmon’s pretentious philosophical gobbledydook, as is evident in his article The Silencing of Gilad Atzmon

Ironically the criticism by Gardner of what Oren ben-Dor writes, on the CST’s web site (the CST is supposed to be a non-political charity), echoes that which the Zionists argue.

Gardner says that ‘They [Atzmon and ben-Dor] both hold up Jewish anti-Zionists as some kind of ultimate supposed proof that Zionism can only be fundamentally understood (and more importantly opposed) as an extension of Jewishness.’  But of course Zionists too argue that Zionism and being Jewish are one and the same, and that Jewish anti-Zionists are ‘self-haters’ i.e. hate their race and nation.

Gardner confirms this when he says that ‘Most left wing anti-israel activists anxiously manufacture distance between Zionists and Jews (i.e. between anti-Zionism and antisemitism).’  In other words that there is no distance or distinction between Zionists and Jews and left-wing anti-Israel activists therefore have to manufacture such distance.  Which is exactly what Atzmon argues!

Gardner says that ben-Dor ‘goes further, suggesting that Nazi perpetrators were somehow captives of a deeper historical force that may repeat in the future.’  But this was always the Zionist attitude to the holocaust.  It was but the culmination of 2,000 years of anti-Semitism.

Despite quoting me in support of the banning of the Southampton Law Conference (which of course I oppose) Gardner proves how little distance there is between Zionist ideologues such as himself and the anti-Semitic Gilad Atzmon.

Tony Greenstein

Southampton University Bows to Zionist & Tory Pressure and Cancels Conference on Israel & International Law

The decision by Southampton University to cancel a conference on Israel and International Law, of all subjects, is an act of sheer cowardice.  Universities have a duty, not only legally but morally, to uphold academic freedom, the cut and thrust of debate, the right to present alternative ideas to those of the mainstream. 

A Police State University

It also demonstrates the hypocrisy of the state.  It was less than 3 months ago that 8 journalists and cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo were murdered in their offices.  World leaders, including those from the most repressive states such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, attended a march dedicated to upholding the values of freedom of speech.  David Cameron also attended but that hasn't prevented his Communities Minister, the loathsome Eric Pickles from adding his (considerable) weight to the call to ban the Conference.  Tory MPs have also weighed in to support the call from the misnamed Board of Deputies of British Jews and various other Zionist front groups.

The loathsome Eric Pickles MP - Called for the Conference to be Banned

 The pretext is 'health and safety' because the Zionists have promised a demonstration.  If Southampton University's administration cannot protect its conferences from a small demonstration then it should collectively resign and make way for those who can.

A University of Cowardice

 There is an appeal later today and the Vice-Chancellor Professor Don Nutbeam will make the final decision, however it is likely to be a charade as this decision is likely to have already met with his approval.  There is the promise of legal action, either in the form of judicial review or an injunction, though our judiciary are not known for their upholding of the right to academic freedom, other than when the rights of fascists such as Patrick Harrington at NE London Polytechnic some years ago, are concerned.

My own view is that we should hold a demonstration at Southampton University to ensure that the Administration is left in no doubt as to our anger.

Tony Greenstein

Statement from Organisers

The March of the World Hypocrites and Tyrants 1

It is with extreme astonishment and sadness that we have to inform you that the University of Southampton has told us earlier yesterday (Monday 30 March 2015) that it intends to withdraw its permission to hold the academic conference on International Law and the State of Israel. We were told that the decision was taken on the grounds of health and safety: a number of groups may be demonstrating for or against the conference which could present risks to the safety of the participants, students and staff. The University claims that it does not have enough resources to mitigate the risks, despite a clear statement from the Police confirming that they are able to deal with the protest and ensure the security of the event.

Southampton University - Where Freedom of Speech Carries no Weight

 As the law stands, the University is legally obliged to uphold freedom of speech, and - unlike in some engineering projects for example where health and safety may be the only legal obligation – the requirement of minimising risk should also fall onto the Police as the agency that is entrusted with the enforcement of the law (freedom of speech) and the provision of security. The mitigating measure should therefore include policing in addition to what the university can reasonably provide using its own security resources. We are therefore extremely dissatisfied with the risk assessment conducted by the University which seems to lack consistency; high risks remained high even when seemingly effective mitigating measures were put in place. Crucially and additionally, the risk assessment does not seem to include all possible risk mitigating measures that could be provided by the police.

A number of risks have been identified by the police but it is very clear from the Police’s report that they are more than capable of policing the conference and ensuring the safety of university staff, speakers, delegates, students and property. However, instead of accepting this at face value the University decided to focus on the risks identified by the Police and ignore their statement about their ability to police the event – we were told the Police will never say in writing they are not able to police an event, in other words the University had doubts about the Police’s ability to do their job of upholding the law! The university claims that the Police are not able or unwilling to become too involved because the University is ‘private property’, which we find astonishing. The University is a public space, it was established by a Royal Charter and it has public roles and duties including upholding freedom of speech and to that extent it should be able to resort to police assistance in order to curb security risks to enable it to fulfil its legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. If this is not done, if commitment to safety is not undertaken by the police, freedom of speech becomes an idle worthless notion. At no point were we given an indication that the University has indeed allowed itself the time to seek viable police assistance to supplement its own resources. Additionally, and unconvincingly, the University claims that it is now too late to put proper security arrangements in place. We do not accept that in any way as there are still 18 days left before the conference.

Given the Police’s confidence in providing security and given that there are other possible mitigating measures that are yet to be explored that could be put in place to minimize the risk, a decision to cancel the conference would be grossly disproportionate and therefore may well be illegal and unconstitutional. Such an action by Southampton University will severely undermine the public’s confidence in the Police’s and the in the University’s ability to protect freedom of speech. Indeed it will have wider implications to all Universities and organisations. We feel that the manner the university communicated with the police and conducted the risk assessment shows that the security argument was used to rationalise a decision to cancel the conference that has been taken under public pressure of the Israeli Lobby. It is quite simply unbelievable that the University cannot ask the Police to handle the risk of demonstrations.

The March of the World Hypocrites and Tyrants 2

 Freedom of speech inherently involves taking risks, and hence the presence of risk cannot be used to curtail it! The UK Government and many other governments have refused to give in to attempts by Islamic extremist to stop the publication of pictures of Prophet Mohammad despite serious risks of violence. The correct response by the governments was to confront and contain that violence and not to cancel the publication of these pictures by Charlie Hebdo and others.

This is a sad decision for freedom of speech and for historic Palestine (which includes what is now the Jewish State of Israel and the 1967 Occupied Territories) and ALL the people who live there.

We will explore legal emergency measures to prevent the University from cancelling the conference, to reverse its decision and to properly collaborate with the police so that the demonstrations can be managed. In addition we call for the widest and most intense public campaign possible that would urgently encourage the university to reverse its decision and which would allow the conference to go ahead.

Finally, we must make it clear that we have made several attempts to meet with the Vice Chancellor to consult him on the organisation of this conference, and to invite him to open the conference but we have never been given the opportunity to do so. On the other hand, the Vice Chancellor has met with pro-Israel representatives without ever calling us to attend meetings and we, as Professors in the University, feel disempowered and marginalised by this disrespectful behaviour.

Professor Oren Ben-Dor, University of Southampton.

Professor George Bisharat, University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Professor Suleiman Sharkh, University of Southampton.

Ms. Juman Ismail.

Conference Organisers

===

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/israelpalestinelaw/index.page

http://electronicintifada.net/…/israel-lobby-uk-officials-a…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Universitys-anti-Semitic-Israe…

Please sign the petition supporting free speech atSouthampton University