Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[compared2what?]

I never claimed to have any expertise about Jewish law, or even much knowledge; instead, I provided several authoritative references and links. To counter them, c2w has only given her own, unsupported opinion.

Alice:

The point in question was whether or not Atzmon had a leg to stand on when he asserted that Judaism was a non-reformist, unchanging religion, based on a "sealed" list of 613 commandments that must be followed strictly, without modification.

The very first page you linked to -- Movements in Judaism, from the Judaism 101 site -- begins like so:

The different sects or denominations of Judaism are generally referred to as movements. The differences between Jewish movements today are not so much a matter of theology, but more a matter of how literally they take the scriptures, how much they think biblical requirements can be changed, and whether those requirements are mandatory. I've been told that the differences between Jewish movements are not as great as the differences between Christian denominations, but I'm not sure if that's true: I once heard a Protestant minister trying to explain to Jews the difference between Protestant denominations, and the first distinction he thought of was the country of origin of the adherents.

In general, when I speak of "movements" in this site, I am referring to movements in the United States in the 20th century, but in fact there have been organized differences of opinion for more than 2000 years.

That clearly and directly addresses the issue and settles it in my favor.

But instead of citing it (or anything else on the page that did likewise), you chose to quote something about the mitzvot (out of context, though you might not have understood it well enough to realize that), which you offered as confirmation that there were so 613 commandments of major import to Judaism. And presented that information to me as something for which I could consider myself indebted to you.

You're in no position to accuse me of bad faith and disrespect. Incidentally.

Anyway. In light of that, there didn't seem to be any point in providing you with the same references you already had. But if you insist. Try reading either of your first two links -- ie, the above and this one on the halakhah, here. You might have to look a few things up. But taken together, they confirm and support everything I said. From a Modern Orthodox perspective. Which isn't the only one.

But when it comes to making factual claims, citations from recognized, credible sources do, and should, carry much more weight than personal testimonials by anonymous posters. That's just common sense.

You mean this kind of personal testimonial?

When Gilad Atzmon uses the word "religious" in reference to Judaism, clearly, he means Orthodox Judaism, which is the only one based on the explicitly binding and eternal commandments contained in the Torah. You may agree or disagree with his equating "religious" with "Orthodox", but he's certainly not 'lying' -- he's defining 'religious' the way it is officially defined and widely understood in the Jewish state, in which he was born and raised.

I agree. There's no reason at all to think it's common for Israelis to say "religious" when they mean "Orthodox." And anyway, Atzmon has lived in the UK for, like, fifteen years; wasn't writing for an Israeli publication/readership; wasn't writing about Israeli Jews; and didn't use the word "religious" anywhere in the lines we were then discussing. (ON EDIT: And I wouldn't exactly advise anyone to bet the farm on the definition of Judaism you're personally attesting to there, either.)

I think a fanatic is someone who ignores credible evidence that contradicts his or her prejudices, and who becomes hostile and abusive against those who present it. I think it's obvious, at least in this thread, who's been providing credible evidence to support their argument, and who has responded only with abuse and dishonest diversionary tactics.

I agree.

[barracuda]

So, AD has a habit of posting the SAME, extremely long copy-pastes, over and over and over, in the same thread? And if so, it's wrong to 'complain' about that?

You and your fanboys were deriding AD long before he began the posts you're mentioning here. His extremely long copy-pastes - all six of them - began only about fifteen pages ago, and each one was punctuated with a new article supporting or adjunctive to his thesis. They were not all the same. His technique was obviously meant to highlight the aspects of the OP which he felt weren't being fairly addressed without having to directly engage with the group here that had basically done nothing but ride his ass for treating this thread in the same way he treats many of his threads. HIs posts were entirely on-topic and pertinent. I assume that's why the mods didn't censure him after you complained.

Actually, it provides a nice insight into the kind of things you like, but only when it's "your side" that does them.

I like it when people persevere even though they're getting ganged up on and insulted. That was the main reason my level of respect for you and your cohorts plummeted here. You didn't have to be an asshole, but took the opportunity to harass and abuse a poster for the small crime of not responding to your abuse.

Your verbal abuse and hypocrisy and your baseless fantasy projections about my supposed secret inner self reveal more about you than they ever could about me. You keep trying to demonize me, and when I defend myself and ask you to provide any evidence at all to back up your libels, you then accuse me of pretending to be a saint/angel or "pious". I can't win, eh? Either I shut up and accept your abusive lies, or I'm conceited. Bullshit.

Nonsense. I'm not trying to demonize you. I'm just giving my opinion in a manner that doesn't apparently rise to the level of respect you think your racist perspectives deserve. You are massively sanctimonious. Like the scarab beetle of your avatar, you push around a ball of dung, and you and your fans think it is the sun itself.

You would, but you'd be lying.

No, that would be and is my honest opinion. My opinion is not a "lie". Now, you might disagree with my opinion, but to say I'm lying would require some insight into my thoughts that even you, oh Alice, don't have. If you did, you'd know your supposition is incorrect.

Of course, we're real people with real backgrounds (at least, I assume so). But when it comes to making factual claims, citations from recognized, credible sources do, and should, carry much more weight than personal testimonials by anonymous posters. That's just common sense.

C2w has demonstrated with great conclusivity the error in Atzmon's statement regarding the non-reformist nature of Judaism. She refused to give you the biscuit-crumb that you ask of her, as she clearly considers it to be well within your means to figure out all by your onesy. I pointed you toward several salient sources regarding aspects of the answer. For you, none of that suffices. You have requirements, and insist they be met according to your "standard": American Dream must post a certain way. Compared2what? must do your research for you. I must present you with a level of respect you're unwilling to grant others. I guess it's all just not fair.

The atrocities in Gaza, and more than 65 years of ongoing crimes against humanity committed by Israel would not be possible without the active complicity of many different individuals around the world, who are driven by an ideology according to which 'tribal interests' supersede morality, loyalty to one's own country, international law, and basic principles of justice and human brotherhood. It is futile to try to stop these crimes without exposing those who make them possible, and without exposing the supremacist ideology they use to not only justify, but to sanctify them. In other words, the real lives of real, flesh-and-blood human beings are at stake. The personal feelings of a Jewish poster here on this board, important as they are, do not outweigh our responsibility to face reality, nor to the desperate victims of ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide.

As I see it, there are more than one supremacist ideologies at play here, and your personal feelings don't outweigh the responsibility to face that reality. For example:

The 1967 expulsion of Egyptian Jews was inexcusable, and a huge loss to Egypt and to them. They were innocent victims of a massive national trauma from which, in a very real sense, Egypt has still not recovered. They were Egyptian in every sense of the word, integrated fully with the rest of Egyptian society, and Egypt was their only home. The context, however, was that Israel had recently launched a devastating war of aggression and taken vast tracts of land not only from Palestine, but also Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, violently emptying even more Palestinian villages and towns. In the process, Israel had committed other terrible war crimes, including torturing and then massacring Egyptian POWs, all in the name of all Jews. Furthermore, Egypt was indeed a hotbed of espionage activity, including known American and Israeli recruitment of spies and assassination plots to reverse all the revolution's gains and bring Egypt back under Western control. It's not right, but that's the context.

They were "Egyptian in every sense of the word", but the terrible war crimes were committed "in the name of all Jews".

Without expanding on exactly why you consider it so wonderful that they were "integrated fully", it's apparent here that to you the loss to Egypt was a loss of Egyptians, not Jews per se. The "Jewishness" which is the plague upon the earth must not have affected these Jews, at least not until they were thrown out of your country and into Israel. From that point on they presumably became Zionist scum which is demonstrable by their very thankfulness to the State of Israel for existing in order that they might have a place to live without leaving the surrounds of their only home, the middle east.

I think a fanatic is someone who ignores credible evidence that contradicts his or her prejudices, and who becomes hostile and abusive against those who present it.

Yep.

[barracuda]

.

They let you back in here again? Whaddaya gotta do 'round this place to get shitcanned, hold a satanic mass in the subforums or something? Get thee behind me, vigilant.

[hava007]

THis is the first commentary I can relate to. Reaching the same conclusion, that the debate should be open and free. (he doesnt take it from there, though, to actually defend the rights of Jews, ISraelis and the likes, to dissent from mainstream Zionism, which is where Palestinians and their proponents fail...). I also, however, agree with some of the critique that it has become insufferable to take the racist crap especially from westerners/Christians who champion "Palestinians' rights" mainly in order to channel their hostility to Jews. I would say that definitely, the Palestinians are the main losers from this phenomenon, because normal people do not like taking shit, they just check out from the whole issue. Myself included by the way.

Regardless, and according to this commentary, I was intrigued enough to read this book, when I get hold of it.

I found this a interesting review of Atzmons book by a Palestinian academic and activist
Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh.

http://salem-news.com/articles/may052012/mazin-gilad.php


Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Ropley, Hampshire, UK: Zero Books, 2011). Pp.177. Paperback. ISBN-13: 9781846948756. Review by Mazin Qumsiyeh
Copy Right: Holy Land Studies, May 2012, Vol. 11, No. 1 : pp. 99-101

About nine years ago, I entertained the notion of writing a book on “group identities” so that I can understand these concepts that cause a lot of the ills of society. Both WWI and WWII emanated from interpretations of nationalism (a group identity) and the conflict in Palestine mostly emanates from another group identity called Zionism. The horrors of the Crusaders came from the group identity of Christendom. There is an issue now with the notions of (Political) “Islamism" ala Osama Bin Laden. I am still exploring and reading on this issue from different authors and thus was intrigued to read the book by Gilad Atzmon that addresses this concept within Jewish communities.

Atzmon concluded from personal experience that he does not like Jewish group identity politics and any other form of what he calls “marginal group identity”. Atzmon starts by explaining his own upbringing as a third generation Israeli whose grandfather was a member of the underground terror organization the Irgun Gang and how via Jazz (and a questioning mind) he “left Chosen-ness behind to become an ordinary human being”.

Atzmon is accused by many to be a “self-hating Jew” and an “anti-Semite”. To the former label he admits but he strongly objects to the second label. His book represents in many ways a clarification of why he believes the way he does. He says (p. 15) that he distinguishes Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion), and Jewish-ness (the ideology). He has no problem with the first two but strongly argues against that third. He puts quotes that show that those who believe in this ideology put Jewish-ness above all other attributes. Thus he understands Chaim Weizmann’s statement that “there are no English, French, German, or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.” This third category that Weizmann belongs to even when overlapping with the first or second category, tends to according to Atzmon, overwhelm all other and represent a strong marginal politics.

Using these definitions, Atzmon proceed to explain how and why this belief (identity politics of Jewish-ness) was critical in the error of going to war on Iraq, in the spying by Jonathan Pollard, in the neoconservative ideologies of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and even in economic decisions of Alan Greenspan. He makes clear that he does not see these things as Jewish conspiracies but merely independent actions based on a set of political/ideological discourse (the Jewish identity politics). My thought is that individual readers should not judge this based on hearsay but should do it for themselves by reading the book. If one gets convinced by Atzmon’s analysis, one could get to the radical conclusion that he makes that “one can hardly endorse a universal philosophy while being identified politically as a Jew” (p. 39).

According to Atzmon, the problems with marginal identity politics such as those of “Jewish-ness” and its alter-ego Zionism is that they are defined by negation: “the political Jew is always against something or set apart from something else. This is far from being an ideal recipe for a peaceful, ethical life, driven by reconciliation and harmony.” (p. 48).

But Atzmon goes further and here I believe is where his thesis draws the wrath of some in the establishment and overtly sensitive crowds: Zionism is a “tribal Jewish preservation project” and “within the Zionist framework, the Israelis colonize Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora is there to mobilise lobbies by recruiting International support. The Neocons transform the American army into an Israeli mission force. Anti Zionists of Jewish descent (and this may even include proud self-haters such as myself) are there to portray an image of ideological plurality and ethical concern.”(p. 70). And in the secular Jewish political discourse, there is no need for God, political Jews are taught to value the Jewish collective and inflict damage to others in the name of this collective according to Atzmon.

Many things he says do make sense even if we may quibble with other things. In explaining “pre-traumatic stress syndrome” he explains that any Jews are taught to anticipate negative things and that in this regard those who actually experienced the negative things (e.g. holocaust survivors) seem more rational and far less hateful of the other than the Jews who did not experience those directly. The latter may even invent events to justify the perpetual fear and hatred. I thought of this as I thought of all the Zionists who lied, cheated, pressured, cajoled, threatened us and our friends and employers and contrasted those with fellow human beings who happen to have a Jewish background (including many holocaust survivors) who stood with us in fighting for human rights. He explained to me that in this area his study and personal experience were the most significant of his controversial findings.

Atzmon argues rather convincingly that “it is not the idea of being unethical that torments Israelis and their supporters, but the idea of being ‘caught out’ as such” (p. 84). This phobia according to Atzmon explains the amount of death and destruction that Israel sows in its surroundings in an attempt to resolve or at least distract from this inner conflict between the tribal and the universal. But this only adds to the phobia for to Atzmon ‘the more they insist on loving themselves for who they think they are, the more they loath themselves for what they have become.” (p. 86). He claims that that leaves three escape routes: total segregation, return to orthodoxy (religion), and flight from “Jewish-ness” (an option he had chosen).

I see in Atzmon writings a number of memes that are seeping into common discourse. A meme is a persuasive idea that spreads in a population like a useful gene spreads in a population. Some of those memes include:
-The now well-established fact that Jews are not a racial group but an ideological religious belief that spread many centuries ago among people of diverse background (this meme came from studies of the Khazars and others by authors like Arthur Koestler, Kevin Alan Brooks, Shlomo Sand, and now Atzmon)
-The idea of a conflict between chauvinistic nationalism and universal humanism.
-The weird mix of religious heritage/belief with tribal notions in Jewish political discourse
-The distorted recruitment of archeological and other studies to support the political ideology of a connection between Jews of today and Israelites of the bible
-The recruitment of the ideology of suffering as a quasi-religious belief that is no longer subject to normal historical examinations (and in fact shielded from such historical examination via laws)

In some places, one could argue that Atzmon goes too far in his conclusions or does not delve as deep as possible in the nuances of identity politics. For example he argues that those who identify themselves as politically Jewish but anti-Zionist serve the same goal as Zionist Jews by keeping the debate “within the family” (p. 102). In another chapter (Chapter 19), Atzmon analyzes the book of Esther and its associated Purim holiday in a political modern context to argue that the lessons drawn from the modern emphasis on the book of Esther (which does not mention God) is the need for Jews to rely on themselves and to get to positions of power in Goyim (gentile) societies to impact their own future. While that interpretation explains the Zionist lobbies in Western countries, some people who are not tribal in their thinking may draw other lessons from the book of Esther or at least downplay it and emphasize other parts of the Torah..

In another place Atzmon questions the sincerity of a Zionist who was part of the group that collaborated with Hitler and who later reported to Lenni Brenner (a historian of the Nazi-Zionist collaboration) that they were wrong and that he is now an American with American loyalties. Atzmon thinks that this relates to the old edict “of being a Jew at home, and a gentile in the streets” (Moses Mendelssohn’s “Haskala Mantra”).

One could quibble with some of these notions, connections, and conclusions. Atzmon's opinions are to be respected even if some of them are based on subjective judgments about other individuals' emotions and motivations. That is because many of his opinions are also shaped by personal experiences. Other parts of the book are intimate and personal and I do not see how Atzmon’s detractors can challenge him on that. For example I fully agree with him that “fighting racism for real primarily entails opposing the racist within” (p. 95). Each of us must fight the demons within before we challenge the demons without. I found these sections of the book which discuss Atzmon's own reflections on his past and evolution of his thinking to be the most fascinating and informative.

As for the other (related) themes and notions presented in this fascinating book, I think this is a very important dialogue to have even if some of us may disagree with some interpretations. The 130 years of Zionist colonization resulted in devastation of a native society and culture resulting in 7 million refugees of a total of 11 million (the rest left in shrinking "people warehouses"). Further, after several wars and countless lives destroyed, it is definitely time to discuss in more detail the motives and the psychology behind Zionism. The attempt to censor and shut down this debate is backfiring. More and more people are spreading memes that challenge the tribalism that lead to conflicts and war. People can choose to dismiss these things and avoid the dialog or can engage in it. I think it is far more constructive to engage in it than to dismiss it out of hand.

[compared2what?]

THis is the first commentary I can relate to. Reaching the same conclusion, that the debate should be open and free. (he doesnt take it from there, though, to actually defend the rights of Jews, ISraelis and the likes, to dissent from mainstream Zionism, which is where Palestinians and their proponents fail...). I also, however, agree with some of the critique that it has become insufferable to take the racist crap especially from westerners/Christians who champion "Palestinians' rights" mainly in order to channel their hostility to Jews.

Yes. It's a sad thing. Furthermore -- predictably -- they always end up doing stuff like putting Omar Barghouti on notice for dissing the master race, as Atzmon did on his website only yesterday. Or, I should say, they only end up doing stuff that starts out in a minor way, such as putting Omar Barghouti on notice for dissing the master race, as Atzmon did on his website only yesterday. While linking to DeLiberation, which did the same thing in much stronger terms.

Because I'm sure it won't stop there.

I don't feel like linking to those assclowns. Somebody else can, if they want. But if not, I freely concede in advance that they don't use the above terminology. They take issue with something he said about white people. I'm paraphrasing.

[barracuda]

Holy shit, they're calling him out as a fifth column zionist agent and saboteur, and calling into question the entirety of the BDS on those grounds.

[compared2what?]

It sounded more like, "Omar Barghouti, this is your first and last warning" than it did like a done deal to me.

A threat, but not yet a punishment, IOW.

ON EDIT: It's definitely not pretty, though, I do agree. But, you know, maybe sometimes you just have to hurt the Palestinians to help the Palestinians. (Green font implied.)

He can keep the Angry Arab company under the wheels of the bus! Not our Angry Arab. The other one. At least, Mazin Qumseyeh probably doesn't have to worry, however. Because (a) that review; and (b) he's Christian.

[American Dream]

I'll take Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah and the Angry Arab over Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, any day of the week!






.

[norton ash]

It's a New York Intellectual Alexandrine, this life.

[bluenoseclaret]

In Israel’s Jails, Prisoners are Dying to Live.....By Joharah Baker May 7, 2012

It is hard to think about anything but the prisoners these days. Politics and politicians are more often than not, mundane and insincere, speaking with forked tongues. Contrastingly, one thought about the prisoners languishing in hospital beds and in prison cells, starving for their dignity is enough to pump life and conviction back into our cause and remind us what we are fighting for.

If nothing else, the prisoners have brought us all back to the raw basics of believing in something. Try to imagine: how much would you have to believe in something to truly be willing to die for it? Not many of us can say we have ever experienced such conviction – uncompromising, unapologetic and uncannily real. But the prisoners have showed us that there are some among us who still believe with such passion. At this moment, two young men – really in the prime of their lives – are slipping in and out of consciousness after their bodies have been deprived of food for over 70 days. Everyone – the Palestinians, the Israelis and mostly these young men’s families – are waiting, expecting the terrible news to arrive – that one or both of them has perished to starvation.

It is difficult to imagine just how much Bilal Diab, Thaer Halahleh and before them Khader Adnan and Hana’ Shalabi, love Palestine. We all love our country but we are not all wiling to starve ourselves, literally to death. These are the people who will breathe new hope into our souls, generate new possibilities and prove that yes, it is possible to achieve goals if you are willing to sacrifice.

Still, we look at the 2,000 or so prisoners on strike who are being punished in Israeli jails for their belief in justice and we hope and pray that none will have to die. Israel has tried to make us out as criminals, terrorists and a people who do not value life, but nothing could be farther from the truth. "I love life but I want to live it with dignity," said Thaer Halahleh to the Israeli court that later rejected his appeal to cancel the administrative order against him. "No one who loves life would accept to be put in jail without charge."

He is right of course. Since the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has arrested and imprisoned approximately 700,000 Palestinians on political grounds. Today there are more than 5,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails, over 300 under administrative detention or imprisonment without charge. There is not one Palestinian family who has not had a son, a daughter, husband, father, sister or some relative put in Israeli jails all for their love of Palestine and their rejection of Israel’s occupation.

The prisoner strike is teaching us all a lesson. To Israel, the prisoners have sent a message that there is power in numbers and that they should fear the thousands of prisoners who could die because they will be held responsible for their deaths. Their message is loud and clear: treat us with the dignity we deserve and adhere to international laws that protect the rights of prisoners of war.

To the Palestinian leadership, the prisoners have made an even more poignant point: do not forget us. While the leadership has always paid lip service to the cause and plight of the prisoners, it is only now that the case is back at the forefront of its agenda. The leadership has also been reminded that the struggle is not just about negotiations and diplomacy. The struggle has returned to the purity of its beginnings, when its strength came from its simplicity: release the prisoners who are fighting for independence, reject the occupation and fight for freedom at any cost.

Perhaps most admirable of all, however, is the lesson these heroic souls are teaching us average Palestinians. They have reminded us of what resistance and sacrifice is all about; they have brought us back to the fundamentals of martyrdom – to be willing to die for something you believe in so that others can live. These men and women do not want to die. Neither do we. But it is because they love life, because they love freedom and most of all because they love Palestine, that they are willing to do just that.

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

Kro

"Birds of a Feather"

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m87882&hd=&size=1&l=e

Kro

[Searcher08]

It's a New York Intellectual Alexandrine, this life.

Ya mean like Pope?
A needless alexandrine ends the thread
that like a wounded Greenstein, drags its slow length dead.

So I take it that c2w, Cuda and AD do not consider Omar's remarks racist??
"We don't mind him saying racist things cos he signed our anti-Atzmon declaration"

Lovely

[barracuda]

So I take it that c2w, Cuda and AD do not consider Omar's remarks racist??

Where did you get that idea? Personally I think it was a dumb thing to say. But if you accept Alice's definition of racism as requiring a demonstration of the metrics of power inequities, then I'm not sure how you can qualify it as racist.

Atzmon & Co. are distancing themselves from him to preserve their core group of supporters - white supremacist nazis citizens of the world. PROTECT THE BASE

[AlicetheKurious]

The different sects or denominations of Judaism are generally referred to as movements. The differences between Jewish movements today are not so much a matter of theology, but more a matter of how literally they take the scriptures, how much they think biblical requirements can be changed, and whether those requirements are mandatory.

As Gilad Atzmon has often explained, he defines "first-category Jews," as those who follow Judaism the religion above all. This definition unambiguously fits Orthodox Judaism. Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism? Not so much, maybe. Definitely not according to the Jewish state, which defines someone as either ethnically Jewish or religiously Jewish, ie Orthodox. In fact, it seems Orthodox Jews don't really view the religious faith of Conservative and Reform Jews as the one mandated in the Torah, on which Judaism is based. One commenter described them as members of a "Jewish culture club".

Anyway. This tangent is not exactly central to the main issues raised by this thread. According to my understanding, these issues are:

1) Is Gilad Atzmon a racist?

No. He does not even acknowledge "racial differences" between people, whether in word or deed. He talks about 'tribal identity politics' that he condemns because they lay the ideological groundwork for supremacist calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing and other horrors, including apartheid. Even in its mildest form, this supremacy is manifested in the presumption that one's 'identity' gives one the right to impose rules about what others can say, write or even think, and to use bullying, harassment and threats against those who disagree. He criticizes individuals for their actions and their attitudes toward others, never for being Jewish or anything else.

Omar Barghouti's remarks were indeed racist. If he'd substituted "Jews" for "white people", they would be as well. People should not be 'blamed' for being white, or being Jewish, or being Arab, or Christian, or Muslim.

As Gilad Atzmon says,

Why does Mr. Barghouti choose to employ racist, and biological determinist terminology? Clearly he could express the same idea by referring to Westerners' culture, history or even Western expansionism.

Presumably, Omar Barghouti is not really a racist. Nobody, least of all Gilad Atzmon, will be starting a petition for him to be "disavowed". Nobody will launch a campaign against him and anyone who associates with him, nor has he been threatened or harassed or hounded, as Atzmon and so many others have been. In fact, as far as I know, the only people who are harassing him and trying to get him expelled from his university are his fellow students in Tel Aviv.

Holy shit, they're calling him out as a fifth column zionist agent and saboteur, and calling into question the entirety of the BDS on those grounds.

Keep your shirt on, barracuda. He's not "calling into question the entirety of the BDS" -- BDS is actually a decentralized global grassroots movement that emerged in response to the call by Palestinian NGO's under Israeli occupation -- he's questioning the priorities and competence of some of its Western organizers/spokespeople:

Meanwhile in the UK BDS attempts to destroy Israeli Habima theatre but does nothing to promote a Palestinian theatre from Ramallah. As the BDS buying itself a name of a dedicated book burning institution, we learn that trade between Israel and Britain grew last year by 34%.

If BDS is an important humanitarian call and, we in Deliberation believe it is, it better be managed and represented by people who are slightly more principled and certainly more clever and astute. Link

2) Is Gilad Atzmon's analysis valid and valuable?

According to some people, no. They don't want you to read his books, or listen to him speak, or even to think about what he says. They just want you to read highly selective and decontextualized 'excerpts', along with deliberate distortions of his meaning that they've compiled for you. According to them, he must be 'disavowed'. They harass his publisher so that his books won't see the light of day, and harass his interviewers to get them to cancel interviews with him. They pressure organizations and individuals who participate with him in scholarly conferences to intimidate them into withdrawing their invitations or their sponsorship. They try to get his musical events canceled, and his charity donations rejected. They publish malicious insinuations about those who refuse to bow to their bullying, along with barely-veiled threats related to their career.

According to others, yes. Some of those who have found Gilad Atzmon's writings interesting and valuable are highly qualified scholars, and include many individuals whose deep commitment to, and brave defense of human rights and justice are not in question.

Some Jewish individuals have described his insights as important on a personal level for them, and long overdue. Prof. Richard Falk described Atzmon's The Wandering Who? as "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." As Erich Siegel wrote in defense of Atzmon after the call to 'publicly disavow' him, "What has Gilad Atzmon done to inspire this very extreme action? He has examined, and written about, the issue of “Jewishness”, about HIS “Jewishness”, and about mine. Why is this objectionable?" It's a good question. It's a question that, ironically, Gilad Atzmon's own writings help us to answer.

As Ramzy Baroud said, in his endorsement of The Wandering Who, “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.”

Absolutely. Seventy pages into this thread, I'm still waiting for us to start.

[AlicetheKurious]

I'll take Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimah and the Angry Arab over Israel Shamir, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, any day of the week!.

Why do you assign to yourself a right to choose that you deny to others? Why not all of them?

[Searcher08]

So I take it that c2w, Cuda and AD do not consider Omar's remarks racist??

Where did you get that idea? Personally I think it was a dumb thing to say. But if you support Alice's definition of racism as requiring a demonstration of the metrics of power inequities, then I'm not sure how you can qualify it as racist.

Atzmon & Co. are distancing themselves from him to preserve their core group of supporters - white supremacist nazis citizens of the world. PROTECT THE BASE

First, I have not talked about any '&Co'.
Second, I have not read Alice's 'definition of racism', so have no idea what you are talking about.
Third, to characterise people interested in what Atzmon has to say as 'white supremacist nazis' is untrue, and actually quite slanderous. It is the second time on this thread you have said I am a nazi. That's not on. You are having a shit all over my good name. I'm sure both of us would rather avoid pleasantness. It is really not needed, I do not understand why you are persisting in doing it. It is really offensive to someone who had family in the RN in the last war.

So I'll ask you nicely to withdraw it unambiguously as this is real 'noise' with no added value. I wanted to craft a reply to many points from c2w still outstanding and haven't as I have been doing THIS.