Apologies for making such a long post. The argument I was trying to make required providing a lot of background. I hope those who read it find it worthwhile.
compared2what? wrote:AlicetheKurious wrote:I think it's a terrible mistake to dismiss his message simply because it triggers a knee-jerk response. Get over it and listen. He doesn't "hate Jews", he hates what's been done to them and what's being done to them, because it was done to him before his passion for music provided a key that allowed him to escape from his trance. Go back and re-read that article I linked to, the one that discusses the "Christ-killers" accusation. What he's describing is collective psychosis -- romanticized and advertised and sugar-coated for Western consumption initially, but only until it could achieve sufficient power to make this no longer necessary.
According to Atzmon, zionism is this psychosis in the form of a political/religious ideology, used to justify building a state in which this psychosis could be incubated using the Jews as human vehicles, then unleashed, first against the Palestinians, but eventually against everybody else. Looked at it this way, it makes sense: trauma + stripping of the identity + replacement of the old identity with a new, artificial one + nationalist/military indoctrination + constant existential threat + Holocaust religion = ?.
It's to your credit that you read that into it.
But it's not really what's there, which is an amalgamation of every anti-Judaic and/or antisemitic screed that's ever been issued by anyone since (approximately) Saint John Chrysostom's "Adversus Judaeos" in the fourth century.I don't actually object to it on those grounds, though. (Or at least not per se.) In fact, I'd like to take this opportunity to say I regret characterizing the materials on which Icke bases his worldview as "Nazi propaganda." Because while they were, it's both more accurate and more-to-the-point for practical, political purposes to call them what they were before the Nazis used them and what they have been ever since. To wit:
(Very) extreme and reactionary right-wing propaganda._____________________
Because whatever else a narrative that uses the same basic traditional components as the works that reintroduced them to the world in the early 20th century -- eg,
The Protocols,, The Hidden Hand -- that's
always and inevitably what they are. And that's totally irrespective of what name is given to the insidious, deceptive, vile, untrustworthy and corrupting global force being demonized as the cause of all ills/war/despair/immorality/&assorted other forms of woe in the world. Sometimes it's been commies, sometimes it's been Arab terrorists, and sometimes it's been Jews (or zionists, or Israel, or psychiatrists, or the Secret Team, etcetera). It doesn't matter. Because ultimately,
widespread agreement on such points is always and inevitably and exclusively beneficial to proponents of very extreme (and usually very violent) authoritarian state control. It's never been anything else. And it never will be. It's inherently disempowering and inimical to self-government to focus so much energy on the satanic other. And that's just that.
I find it really, really disturbing that so many people don't recognize this stuff for what it is, after all this time. Or....Maybe they do. But that hardly makes it any less disturbing.
There are other terms in which uncompromising opposition and condemnation can be expressed. After all. So why do the
fascists' work for them? Wake up, sheeple, etc.
None of this addresses the issues raised by Atzmon; on the contrary, like the OP, it uses guilt-by-spurious-association to scare people away from thinking about what he says and evaluating it on its own merits. Given the massive, sustained aversive conditioning designed to do just that, clearly I was being unrealistic in expecting people to "get over it and listen" just because I asked them to.
The only thing I take credit for is being capable of reading into Atzmon's writings what
is there, instead of being deflected into pavlovian hysteria and dismissing them on the basis of what he is not saying.
Atzmon is not pushing a medieval religious agenda, or channeling Icke; he is not a reactionary right-wing fascist; the last thing he's advocating is very extreme (let alone violent) authoritarian state control, or
any kind of state control, or fascism in any form, or the denial of equal rights to anybody -- the exact opposite is true.
He attacks the
ideology of "Jewishness" (not the religion of Judaism, not any people) because he finds it dangerous to those who espouse its toxic world-view, and to those who suffer terrible injustices as the result. He believes that this ideology is a relatively recent phenomenon, made to keep Jewish people in a virtual ghetto, isolated from the rest of humanity, regardless of whether they are religious or secular, objectively prosperous or deprived, so that they can be easily manipulated to serve the agenda of their "protectors".
Ok. Sometimes approaching the subject in a roundabout way can help us to avoid the triggers. Ironically, the most appropriate analogy I can think of, is the relationship of Wahhabism to Islam and Muslims. Bear with me.
The Islamic religion, as traditionally interpreted by its scholars through the centuries and as practiced by the diverse Muslim peoples, is a profoundly humanitarian spiritual faith that includes a highly evolved system of ethics. In the Prophet's own time, there were many prominent, independently wealthy merchants who were women, including his revered first wife, Khadija. Of the three major faiths, it is the only one that explicitly commands its followers to respect the others.
Say ye: 'We believe in God and the revelation given to us and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God.' " Qur'an, Chapter 2, Verse 136
In a letter he wrote to St. Catherine's Monastery in Mount Sinai, the Prophet Mohamed spelled out how Christians must be treated by faithful Muslims:
This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).
Link
The central principles of Islam are justice, mercy, humility, truth, human freedom (including
freedom of worship) and dignity. The God of Islam commands men and women to seek learning and wisdom, not just in books, but by caring for,
studying and meditating upon nature in all its forms, His creation. The majority of pious Muslims around the world practice a form of "folk religion" which incorporates their local culture, Islam based on the Qur'an and the Prophet's basic teachings, and elements of Sufism, a gnostic mystical tradition.
Nevertheless, especially during the last century, we have seen the emergence and phenomenal spread of an intolerant, fascist, misogynist, violent sect calling itself "Islam" yet directly opposing the most central tenets of the Islam of the Qur'an, and the strictures of the Prophet himself. It is actively hostile to the questioning and learning that the Prophet insisted were the duty of every Muslim, and de-emphasizes Islam's spirituality in favor of a rigid code of external behavior. In fact, Wahhabism defines as a grave "sin" many things that the Prophet himself permitted, such as rising up against injustice, especially an unjust ruler, women's independence, and apostasy. Furthermore, it speaks on behalf of all Muslims yet violently suppresses Islam as practiced by the masses. How did this happen?
Wahhabism originated in the mid-18th century as a tiny, obscure cult established by a zealot named Mohamed Ibn Abdel Wahhab (1703-92) in the village of ‘Uyayna, northwest of Ryadh. He was educated in Medina and traveled extensively, including several years in Iraq. It was there that he formulated the heresy that would later be known as Wahhabism, and which earned him so many enemies and threats that he was forced to flee back to 'Uyayna.
Back home, Abdel Wahhab's rigid and oppressive ideas were rejected by almost everyone around him, including his own father, and his brother, both of whom were scholars in Islamic jurisprudence. But early on he displayed a tendency to ally with armed thugs and raiders, who were only too happy to have a religious pretext to rob, vandalize and pillage. His first ally, the Emir (prince) 'Uthman, was eventually ordered by the regional ruler to execute Abdel Wahhab after the latter publicly killed a woman who had confessed to adultery. Instead, 'Uthman told Abdel Wahhab to go into exile in the poor, isolated village of Dir'iyyah. It was there, in 1744, that Mohamed Abdel Wahhab met and formed a fateful alliance with Mohamed Ibn Saud. Abdel Wahhab persuaded Ibn Saud to stop collecting taxes and instead conduct armed raids against neighboring villages and those whom he described as "infidels". The meeting between this obscure fanatic and this equally obscure, illiterate tribal chieftain would, nearly two centuries later, have an immeasurable impact on the Middle East, and perhaps the world.
There are many, including several Arab scholars, who believe that Wahhabism was in fact invented by the British, who recruited Abdel Wahhab during his extensive travels abroad, and used him to propagate his heresy as a way to divide and weaken the Ottoman Empire. Intriguingly, Abdel Wahhab was described as teaching his followers to manufacture and use firearms, which he may have learned from the British. In one of the many fascinating parallels with zionism, there is a book which purportedly confirms this belief,
Confessions of a British Spy, widely denounced as a forgery by Western academics, and compared with
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The first ones to oppose this new trend within Islam, as introduced by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, were his father Abd al-Wahhab, his brother Salman Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who was an Islamic scholar, and a qadi*, who wrote a book in refutation of his brother's new teachings, called: "The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab").... In "The Refutation of Wahhabism in Arabic Sources, 1745–1932",[25] Hamadi Redissi provides original references to the description of Wahhabis as a divisive sect (
firqa) and outliers (
Kharijites) in communications between Ottomans and Egyptian Khedive Muhammad Ali. Redissi details refutations of Wahhabis by scholars (
muftis); among them Ahmed Barakat Tandatawin, who in 1743 describes Wahhabism as ignorance, (
Jahala).
In 1801 and 1802, the Saudi Wahhabis under Abdul Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Saud attacked and captured the holy Muslim cities of Karbala and Najaf in Iraq, massacred parts of the Muslim population and destroyed the tombs of Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of Muhammad, and son of Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad. In 1803 and 1804 the Saudis captured Makkah and Medina and destroyed historical monuments and various holy Muslim sites and shrines, such as the shrine built over the tomb of Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad, and even intended to destroy the grave of Muhammad himself as idolatrous. In 1998 the Saudis bulldozed and poured gasoline over the grave of Aminah bint Wahb, the mother of Muhammad, causing resentment throughout the Muslim world.[26][27][28]
Some Muslims, such as one of the most renowned Sunni scholar of Islam, Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti [29] as well as Islamic Supreme Council of America, Abdul Hadi Palazzi, and Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed ... General Secretary of All-India Jamiyyathul Ulama, the organisation of Muslim scholars in India,
classify Wahhabbism as extremist and heretical mainly based on Wahhabbism's rejection of traditional Sunni scholars and interpretation as followed by 96% of the world's Muslim population.[30][31][32]
*judge
Link
In the early 18th century, the religious scholars of the Najd and Hijaz (territories which the British would later merge by force to create the new country of "Saudi" Arabia) wrote to Mohamed Ali, the Ottoman ruler of Egypt, to beg him to send his army to rescue their people from attacks by the violent and armed proponents of this "strange new cult, which claims to be of Islam, but which is not the Islam we know." In response, Mohamed Ali sent his own son, Ibrahim Pasha, at the head of a formidable army. As a result, two separate attempts to impose Wahhabist rule, in 1818 and a much smaller one in 1824, were put down. However, the Wahhabists' ambitions were given new impetus through another alliance that would prove fateful: in 1865, Faisal, the grandfather of the founder of Saudi Arabia (Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud), openly pledged his allegiance to the British and once again began to wage war against the Ottoman Empire, with British covert financial, logistical and weapons support. By the early 1900s, it was no longer overt.
Because Britain’s colonial strategy in the Arabian Peninsula at the beginning of the 20th century was quickly gearing towards the final and complete destruction of the Muslim Ottoman Empire and its allies in Najd, [the] al-Rasheed clan, the British decided to swiftly support the new Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz. Fortified with British support, money, and weapons, the new Wahhabi Imam was able in 1902 to capture Riyadh. One of his first savage acts after capturing Riyadh was to terrorize its inhabitants by spiking the heads of the falling al-Rasheeds at the gates of the city. He and his fanatical Wahhabi followers also burned over (1,200) people to death.10
Known in the West as “Ibn Saud”, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz was well loved by his British masters. Many British officials and emissaries in the Arab Gulf area frequently met or interacted with him, and generously supported him with money, weapons, and advisors. Sir Percy Cox, Captain Prideaux, Captain Shakespeare, Gertrude Bell, and Harry Saint John Philby (the so-called “Abdullah”) were among the many British officials and advisors who constantly surrounded Abdulaziz to help him with everything he needed. With British weapons, money, and advisors, Imam Abdulaziz was able to gradually conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula in a ruthless manner under the banner of Wahhabism to create the Third Saudi-Wahhabi State, known today as Saudi Arabia.In creating Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi Imam Abdulaziz and his fanatical Wahhabi soldiers of God committed horrible massacres especially in Islam’s holy land of Hejaz from which they brutally expelled its noble Shareef ruling class, the direct descendants of Prophet Mohammad. In Turabah in May 1919 they waged a sneak attack in the dead of the night on the Hejazi army and viciously massacred over 6,000 of its men. Again, in August 1924 the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis barbarically broke into people’s houses in the Hejazi city of Taif,threatened them, and stole their money at gunpoint. They decapitated boys and old men, and were amused by the horrified women who were screaming and weeping. Many of Taif’s women quickly hid down deep in their water-wells to escape the ongoing rape and murder committed by the savage Saudis-Wahhabis. The primitive Saudis-Wahhabis also murdered many Imams while they prayed in their mosques; burned most of Taif’s buildings to the ground; indiscriminately slaughtered most men they found in the streets; and stole everything that could possibly be moved. More than 400 innocent people were quickly butchered in Taif.11
When the vicious Saudis-Wahhabis entered Islam’s holiest city, they found Makkah’s terrorized inhabitants hiding in their homes, the streets were totally deserted, and the houses’ doors and windows were tightly shut in their faces. The Saudis-Wahhabis brutally broke into Makkah’s houses and destroyed all musical instrumentsand records, gramophones, radios, cigarettes, tobacco pipes, pictures, and mirrors – all considered by them (at that time) to be the work of the Devil. The primitive invaders then used the wooden frames of Makkah’s houses and doors for cooking fire. The Wahhabi soldiers of God also flogged Makkah’s inhabitants who wore Western clothes, gold, perfume, or silk. They also desecrated most graveyards, and destroyed many of Makkah’s beautiful tombs, ornamental mosques, and shrines that had stood for centuries reflecting the glorious Islamic past and the great history of the holy city. In addition, the ignorant invaders barbarically destroyed any physical traces of Prophet Mohammad’s historical monuments and sites in the holy city as well as all other historical buildings or physical structures that could in any way be traced to his disciples “in order not to be worshiped as holy spots”.
12
In addition, Imam Abdulaziz’s Wahhabi soldiers of God savagely bombarded Islam’s second holiest city of Madinah. To the horror of all Muslims around the world, their British-made bombs and shells fell on Prophet Mohammad’s tomb, badly damaging it.The fanatical Saudi-Wahhabi army then laid a year-long crippling siege on the seaport city of Jeddah, causing starvation. As a result, drinking water was practically impossible to find and Jeddah’s poor spent their days searching the streets for food in the garbage. Many of them even picked and ate the undigested corn found in the camels’ dung. After severely bombarding the city for some time, the ignorant Saudi-Wahhabi fighters5 finally entered Jeddah and immediately began destroying the telephone lines, the radio station, and other signs of modern life, considered by them (at that time) to be sacrilegious and work of the Devil.
During the 30 years of creating Saudi Arabia (1902-32), the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis brutally killed and wounded over 400,000 Arabs throughout the Arabian Peninsula; and carried out over 40,000 public executions and 350,000 public amputations, respectively 1% and 7% of the then estimated population of 4 million.13
In addition, the Saudi-Wahhabi terror forced more than one million inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula to flee for their lives to other parts of the Arab world, never to return.14
Unlike a century earlier when the Egyptian Ibraheem Pasha under Ottoman orders punished the Saudi-Wahhabi warriors for their crimes against Hejaz’s holy cities and inhabitants, this time the Arab and Muslim worlds were under the brutal control of Western colonial powers. Accordingly, the fanatical Saudis-Wahhabis escaped punishment and found protection and safety in Britain’s power and friendship.
After establishing his British-made Wahhabi State, Imam Abdulaziz became a brutal dictator who took control of everything personally. He destroyed Hejaz’s free press, political parties, constitution, and all of its governmental apparatuses. The Wahhabi Imam then brazenly named the whole country after his own family, calling it the Kingdom of “Saudi” Arabia. Link
Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud, the future "king" of the new, British-created state of "Saudi Arabia" had been receiving a monthly salary of 5000 pounds from the British since 1915, when the Treaty of Darin signed between the future Saudi monarch and the British determined the borders of the future state and declared it a British protectorate. In 1935, the British awarded him the Order of the Bath. Although the British were responsible for in Saudi Arabia's establishment in 1932, like Israel's only sixteen years later, it would be more accurate to say that certain extremely powerful and influential individuals within the Anglo-British establishment, especially the members of the so-called
Round Table, were the real masterminds behind both.
Through the assistance of Jack Philby, Allen Dulles, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations who would later head the CIA but at the time worked for the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, helped the Rockefeller oil companies gain Saudi Arabia which would soon become the world’s single greatest oil resource, accounting for nearly half of total oil production.
In 1933, the Saudis granted oil concessions to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC), affiliate of Standard Oil of California (Socal, today’s Chevron), headed by John D. Rockefeller Jr. of the Round Table and a founding members of the CFR.
In 1936, Socal and the Texas Oil Company created a partnership, which would later be named Aramco, or the Arabian-American Oil Company. To Socal and Texaco were added the Standard of New Jersey and Socony-Vacuum, the predecessors of Exxon Mobil. The Aramco partners, along with British Petroleum (BP), Royal Dutch Shell, and Gulf Oil combined as a cartel to control the price of oil, known collectively as the Seven Sisters. With the Saudi royal family, they controlled the world’s largest source of petroleum.
Link
With British oversight, the Wahhabist cult began to take root beyond that country's borders, especially in the Arab territories controlled by Britain. After WWII, when the British empire waned and was overtaken by the US, Saudi alliances shifted accordingly, and Saudi Arabia was transformed into an American tool, first against the British and later against the rising force of secular Arab nationalism, led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel-Nasser, that was sweeping the Arab world, including within Saudi Arabia itself.
"I do not know the man," the president [Eisenhower] wrote in his diary on 28th of March [1957], but "Arabia is a country that contains the holy places of the Moslem world, and the Saudi Arabians are considered to be the most deeply religious of all the Arab groups.
Consequently, the king could be built up, possibly, as a spiritual leader. Once this were accomplished, we might begin to urge his right to political leadership." As Keeper of the Holy Places of Islam, Saud was well placed to "disrupt the aggressive plans that Nasser is evidently developing." A few days later, a British diplomat, after meeting with Dulles, reported to London that Eisenhower favored "building up King Saud as a 'monkey-monk of the Arabs'" -- perhaps a garbling of Dulles' use of the American expression "high muck-a-muck".
Link
As long as Nasser remained alive, even after the trauma of the nationalists' 1967 defeat by Israel, this plan met with very limited success. However, after the death of Gamal Abdel-Nasser in Egypt and his replacement with Anwar Sadat, soon followed by the Kissinger-engineered massive surge in oil prices in 1973, the Saudis had ample means to finance the propagation of Wahhabism throughout the world -- via Saudi domination of the media in the Middle East, the building of mosques and the hiring of Wahhabist preachers, the establishment of schools where Wahhabist ideology is taught, and charitable organizations where social and medical services are combined with religious indoctrination. All this took place under the approving eye of the United States and its client regimes.
Within less than a decade, its adherents had managed to equate Wahhabism with Islam itself, not only in the eyes of the West, but also among many Muslims as well, to the dismay of traditional Islamic scholars, whose voices were drowned out by the very wealthy and free-spending, and also extremely oppressive Wahhabists.
From its roots as a very minor heretic cult, Wahhabism has become synonymous in many people's minds with Islam itself. Financed by the Saudi monarchy's astronomical theft of the people's wealth on behalf of its Western patrons, its legions of well-heeled preachers, political activists, judges, scholars, bankers, drones and shock troops span the region and the world. It represents the majority Sunni Islamic establishment in such international arenas as the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Gulf Cooperation Council and claims to speak on behalf of all Muslims and of the "true" Islam; headquartered in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi royal family wields vast economic and political power with tentacles that spread around the globe. None of this would be possible were it not for the support and protection of the British empire at first, then its successor, the American empire. Until the present day, it is American military, political and economic power that sustains it. The Saudi state and its satellites have collaborated with every major atrocity against the Arab nation, and every conspiracy to rob and enslave it on behalf of hostile foreign powers. Yet it is the opponents of Wahhabism who are accused of collaborating with the enemies of the Muslim people, of being traitors and zionist agents, of being apostates and infidels who hate Islam.
Though perhaps not obvious, the parallels with zionism are staggering. Like the history of what has come to represent establishment Islam, the actual origins of zionism and how it came to dominate establishment Judaism are not widely known. Like Wahhabism, zionism has ideological roots in the 17th century and even earlier, but its practical origins in the 1830s, when the wealthy financier and President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Moses Montefiore, began to commission a series of censuses of Jews in Palestine starting in 1839, followed by purchases of land there from the Ottoman sultan and the offer of financial incentives to poor European Jews to emigrate to Palestine. He also financed the transport of builders from England to Palestine, and provided health, education and employment for Jewish immigrants. They also received paramilitary training and weapons, as well as being taught self-sufficiency. This activity coincided with the British decision to send a British consul to Jerusalem, and to establish the first European Consular Office in 1939.
Given the fact that the two major financiers of Jewish settlement in Palestine, Moses Montefiore and Lord [Nathan] Rothschild, were both very prominent and powerful British Jews, it is perhaps not entirely a coincidence that the aggressive British efforts to recruit, arm and train Ibn Saud and his Wahhabist army to defeat the Ottoman Sultan begin during the early 1860s, when the Sultan suddenly refused to sell any more land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. Perhaps.
In any case, zionism, like Wahhabism, began as an insignificant minority cult that directly contradicted the mainstream religious and political ideology held by the majority. The vast majority of those who emigrated to Palestine to settle the "Yishuv" in Palestine established by Montefiore, Rothschild and other wealthy financiers did not travel for ideological or religious reasons, but were destitute Jews escaping pogroms and other persecution in Russia after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881. By the beginning of the 20th century, the number of even these immigrants had slowed to a trickle.
With the exception of Russia and other parts of eastern Europe, Jews, like other Europeans, enjoyed a century of unprecedented freedom and opportunity following the French Revolution and the Enlightenment. For the first time, Jewish communities were faced with the very real "threat" of assimilation. Many became secularized and alienated from Jewish communal life, and beyond the reach of rabbinic authorities. Others converted to Christianity. It is not a coincidence that zionism emerged during this time: not as a reaction to anti-semitism, which had been much worse in previous centuries, but as a reaction to the fear of assimilation, what Atzmon and others have described as an urgent need to recreate the ghetto, to erect and maintain high walls of separation between the Jews and the Other.
It is this rarely expressed but undeniable element of zionism that Atzmon perceives as its greatest danger. Like Wahhabism, zionism is a substitute for religion and identity engineered by elites to perpetuate their power at the expense of the people they manipulate. It is tool for maintaining control by sowing fear and distrust of the Other, while it holds up its own predatory religious and political establishment as the only authoritative interpreter of reality. It demands that people abdicate their reason, their sense of ethics and even their sanity.
God, I know this post is long. It's 2:30 am and I still have so much to say, but enough.
I just want to make a final comment about the "Christ-killer" accusation, which I feel some here insist on willfully misinterpreting, because he's quite clear. First, he's saying that whether Christ really was crucified or not, or it happened the way we're told it happened, or not -- it's religious scripture and he has no opinion on that.
Second, he's asking, "WTF does that have to do with me, or anybody else living today? Do Italians feel guilty that Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death?"
Third, he's saying that at least they're consistent in their psychotic world-view. Because if the zionists say, "Well, that's just ancient history or religious mumbo-jumbo, and therefore irrelevant to us," when it comes to the killing of Christ and the subsequent oath by the ancient Hebrews, "Let his blood be on our heads and on the heads of our children!", then why the hell are they killing and pillaging and plundering Palestinians on the basis of God's commandment to do so? In other words, it's a package deal: either you believe that both the license to kill and steal and the oath taken by the ancient Hebrews are relevant and binding, or that neither is.
He goes on to say, but it gets even worse: not only do they believe this stuff, but they've adopted the exact same moral code of the ancient Hebrews, and are putting it into practise against their Palestinian victims, while feeling virtuous and quoting the Bible and claiming that they are doing "God's work".
If that's all too complicated for you to understand, then what the hell. I'm done.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
) and disagree in part ( 
).
