Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[eyeno]

Iamwhomiam wrote:

"don't log in"

That is probably the best advice I have been given in my life. I'm thinkin its good advice too.

[compared2what?]

Iamwhomiam wrote:

"don't log in"

That is probably the best advice I have been given in my life. I'm thinkin its good advice too.

I thought it was uncalled for. But since I know that Iamwhomiam is generally a poster of good will and a sensitive person, I assumed -- and still do -- that whatever I was missing would either right itself eventually or wasn't wrong to begin with.

In short: I know that I know nothing.

Nice to see you, though, eyeno.

[eyeno]

I thought it was uncalled for. But since I know that Iamwhomiam is generally a poster of good will and a sensitive person, I assumed -- and still do -- that whatever I was missing would either right itself eventually or wasn't wrong to begin with.

In short: I know that I know nothing.

Nice to see you, though, eyeno.

Sweetheart I just gave you the golden nugget. Do with it what you will. I'm still thinking in this day and age that Iamwhomiam has the best answer. I say that with all grace to Iamwhomiam too because I 'truly' believe that Iamwhomiam speaks some deep ass wisdom that maybe a lot of us should grock right about now.

[eyeno]

I want to say some more things too.

Sometimes when me and barracuda, c2w, AD, jackriddler, etc.. go at it i'm always doing it with a smile inside.

In my childish mind I'm thinking, "we sat down at a bar, got drunk, we would leave hugging each others neck and shaking hands."

That is that way 'I' feel about this whole internet discourse. I give people shit, they give me shit, etc...

No big deal.

But, this is becoming a very dangerous world. My naive bar sitting quibbles are being saved forever. There could come a day when I would have to answer for all this stuff. If that ever happened it would not be over a table full of drinks, hand shaking at the end. Ya know? It worries me.

Ya'll know I come from a mixed background. I'm a mutt. That is what I am. A mutt. I"m one of those that wants everybody to throw down the swords and get drunk together. That ain't gonna happen. I realize that now. I wish it could, but I see that it won't.

So, what I see as playful internet banter could lead to some serious shit some day because there is some deadly serious people in this world that are NOT playing and they mean damn business. They won't realize that the things I say are in passing, and that I would sit down with them and get drunker than five dogs in a henhouse. They won't get it.

So I say again, Iamwhomiam speaks some wisdom. Probably some deep ass wisdom.

I love you guys. All of you. I don't have a dog in this hunt. I don't have a religious pony in this race. But, i'm not so sure that playing around with these subjects is wise anymore. It worries me. What else can I say?

[Joe Hillshoist]

There could come a day when I would have to answer for all this stuff. If that ever happened it would not be over a table full of drinks, hand shaking at the end. Ya know? It worries me.

Yeah but if you back out then well you know ... the terrorists have won.

They (whoever "they" are) want you to think they are more powerful than they are. And even if they are that powerful - fuck 'em. Whats the worse they can do? Cut your fingers off with bolt cutters and spray acid in the wounds? BFD.

If you limit your own freedom you are doing the job of a police state for them. I know that isn't exactly a comfort but it is after all, just a ride. So don't be afraid.


Ever.

Cheers big ears.

[eyeno]

There could come a day when I would have to answer for all this stuff. If that ever happened it would not be over a table full of drinks, hand shaking at the end. Ya know? It worries me.

Yeah but if you back out then well you know ... the terrorists have won.

They (whoever "they" are) want you to think they are more powerful than they are. And even if they are that powerful - fuck 'em. Whats the worse they can do? Cut your fingers off with bolt cutters and spray acid in the wounds? BFD.

If you limit your own freedom you are doing the job of a police state for them. I know that isn't exactly a comfort but it is after all, just a ride. So don't be afraid.


Ever.

Cheers big ears.

I've already suffered some bad things. The things you speak of might be better than what I have already been through. Just sayin...

[Joe Hillshoist]

There could come a day when I would have to answer for all this stuff. If that ever happened it would not be over a table full of drinks, hand shaking at the end. Ya know? It worries me.

Yeah but if you back out then well you know ... the terrorists have won.

They (whoever "they" are) want you to think they are more powerful than they are. And even if they are that powerful - fuck 'em. Whats the worse they can do? Cut your fingers off with bolt cutters and spray acid in the wounds? BFD.

If you limit your own freedom you are doing the job of a police state for them. I know that isn't exactly a comfort but it is after all, just a ride. So don't be afraid.


Ever.

Cheers big ears.

I've already suffered some bad things. The things you speak of might be better than what I have already been through. Just sayin...

Well i don't know you so I didn't know that.

You have to do whats good for you.

When I was a kid my life, and my brothers life, were used against my father and he left the state we lived in at the time rather than continue the fight he was involved in (with that state's establishment.)

At the time he thought that our lives were more important, but the cost on him was significant, and I still don't think it was worth it, looking from the outside. I'm a parent now and I understand how he felt, and I don't have an answer, cos I also see the other side of the problem. Tho I can't imagine a worse bind to be in than the one he was in, and he made his decision without a moments second thought at the time, cos obviously, as a parent he wouldn't put his kids at risk needlessly.

Ultimately you have to make your own decision.

Its not for me to expect you to go thru stuff for what I reckon is the right reason or make any judgement on you. I'm just giving my opinion.

[Sounder]

Thanks C2W?, that was epic, and thanks to Jack for the Barret stuff also.

[Bruce Dazzling]

You know what we need?

An Un-Occupy Israel Movement.

[AlicetheKurious]

He calls these people, who work hard at imposing their own tribal obsessions on others, the "anti-zionist zionists".

He sure does. That's one of his cutest phrases, as a matter of fact. (Since it more or less equates to "anti-zionist Jews," it's kind of a winking acknowledgment of what he means when he just says "zionists.")

No. Atzmon defines anti-zionist zionists as activists who claim to be anti-zionist, and defenders of Palestinian rights, then use their position within the Palestine solidarity movement to make it all about Jews. They've done immeasurable damage to the movement, while posing as its most fervent supporters and sometimes even speaking on its behalf, using their "street creds" to render the movement as ineffective as possible. For decades, they got away with it, but this began to change as young Palestinian activists began to take over the movement's leadership from the old generation of mostly Jewish leftists who were its principal icons.

Today, in the West (mostly the US and Britain), the Palestinian solidarity movement is actually two separate movements: one is led by Palestinians, and its agenda is exclusively focused on Palestinian rights and the most effective way to exert pressure to achieve those rights. The other claims to oppose zionism and defend Palestinian rights, but has very different priorities. From my earlier post:

After the 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza I organized a concert for ‘Medical Aid for Palestinians’ featuring iconic violinist Nigel Kennedy. Campaigners launched an onslaught from all sides - the right, the left, the Zionists and the anti-Zionists - individually and collectively, lobbied the owner of the venue, the director of MAP and myself, demanding that we cancel the event. Some even accused us of mobilizing art to fund rocket attacks on Jews. I was shocked, upset and embarrassed that I had inadvertently dragged my friend, who owns the club, into such a shameful debacle.

This is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of these "anti-zionist zionists": with human lives literally in the balance, they chose to try to discredit Gilad Atzmon, even if that meant canceling a fund-raising event to get vital medical help to the Palestinians who needed it so desperately.

They didn't succeed, and the concert was a "huge success", but once again these moral hypocrites showed how vindictive and unethical they really are:

After the concert (a huge success) I was labeled a Holocaust denier. Not only was this accusation ludicrous and totally unfounded it was potentially damaging to me.

I regard his calling for "No more Jewish state in Occupied Palestine" -- which is exactly the same thing that Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman and the other people he lists in that post are calling for -- in some unspecified way that evidently somehow makes it different as advocating for the mass extinction of Jews on "racial" grounds.

Because the anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian advocacy of all the people he lists is distinguished by two (2) common factors:

(1) They don't want to see Israel wiped off the face of the map, in the conventional sense of that phrase, which is violent.

(2) They're Jewish.

Again, no. The problem is neither non-violence nor being Jewish. That's silly. They're distinguished by two (2) other common factors:

(1) both explicitly support a Judeo-supremacist state in Palestine, just within the 78% of Palestine that was ethnically cleansed prior to 1967, and condescendingly attack those who do call for one democratic state using all sorts of insulting names, including "childish" and "impractical" (even though it is the "two-state solution" that is simply not feasible, on practical, moral or legal grounds). They don't want to see Israel wiped of the face of the map period, whether through violent or non-violent means. In other words, though neither defines himself as such, both are zionists.

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity and opposes the the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be liberated from anti-Semitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that has occurred in other societies.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. Link

(2) and both oppose the rapidly growing and effective Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign led by Palestinians. Finkelstein specifically opposes it on the grounds that it will lead to Israel's "destruction" (see below) -- although he also ridicules it as ineffective, which is odd. In addition, Noam Chomsky for many years served as a very effective gate-keeper by insisting that Palestine solidarity activists avoid addressing the issue of the Israel lobby in the US and elsewhere, insisting that it was "insignificant" (Hah! tell that to the presidential candidates and members of Congress, and to all those whose political careers were destroyed by it!).

A good rebuttal of Chomsky's attack on the BDS movement can be found in this podcast. I recommend it highly.

In other words, they fully support the Palestinian cause as long as it's hopeless (the two-state solution, if it was ever possible, has been rendered impossible by Israel's own actions over the past 3 decades), and they do everything possible to ensure it remains hopeless, while professing to support it.

I found it sickening, as a long-time admirer of Finkelstein, to see him suddenly channeling Derschowitz no less, in a video that created shock-waves throughout the Palestine solidarity movement. He accuses them (among other things) of being "dishonest", but it was at his personal request that the video was removed from Youtube. Excerpts can still be found here:



Zionists all over the net could hardly contain their glee:

This is a truly remarkable set of statements. Strategically, it’s about the worst thing that could have happened to the BDS movement – to be spanked so thoroughly by one of the leading Palestinian activists in the West.

Luckily, he's wrong. It's an indication of how Palestinian leadership has transformed the Palestine solidarity movement, that both Finkelstein and Chomsky have largely discredited themselves, rather than the targets of their attacks.

[bks]

You know what we need?

An Un-Occupy Israel Movement.

I mean, speaking only for myself, if I had the chance to expatriate myself from the United States as part of an organized political protest movement, I'd be on it like a bum on a baloney sandwich. And I'm sure that there are a modest but sizable number of people who'd do the same. But the thing is: At most, that would really just be an act of self-expression here. And no more. Because such a movement wouldn't even be capable of having much of a symbolic impact here, just as a function of the size of the country.

But in Israel, which is tiny and very much defined by elective residence, you might be able to get somewhere with that approach. Because if I'd been born there and hadn't left already, I'd sure as hell want to leave and make it count as much as I could by doing so now. And I'm sure that there are a lot of people who'd feel that way if the idea had ever occurred to them. It's just highly unlikely to have ever occurred to them. Abandoning Israel, even as a concept, was totally taboo until very recently. But enough of the bloom is off that rose now. So now is the time.

Just thinking aloud.

As a practical matter, provocative though the idea is, the voluntary expatriation of the more liberal elements within the society would only leave a larger proportion of reactionary types to run the show on the way down. Further, it might also cause a backlash Aliyah uptick among conservatives in the diaspora who are [for the moment] content to fund major Jewish organizations and the Israel Lobby.

That would virtually ensure a terrible ending to this saga [not that I have a better idea, and not that I don't agree with you in principle].

[Simulist]

I really appreciate your response, Compared2what. Thank you.

You're welcome! It's not as far-fetched as it might sound, you know. I mean, it's still very far-fetched, there's no fucking denying that. I just mean that it's not as far-fetched as it might sound if what Atzmon says about "Jewishness" were really true. There'd be very strong opposition to it, obviously. But there's also a natural constituency to whom it might strongly appeal.

Yes. Especially to those for whom the words "a light to the nations" means a very great deal.

[eyeno]

But in Israel, which is tiny and very much defined by elective residence, you might be able to get somewhere with that approach. Because if I'd been born there and hadn't left already, I'd sure as hell want to leave and make it count as much as I could by doing so now. And I'm sure that there are a lot of people who'd feel that way if the idea had ever occurred to them. It's just highly unlikely to have ever occurred to them. Abandoning Israel, even as a concept, was totally taboo until very recently. But enough of the bloom is off that rose now. So now is the time.

I read an article some place within the last couple of days that said Israelis are getting dual passports in record numbers recently because they are preparing themselves to flee the country if war breaks out with Iran. So the flee, in a way, started a good while back.

[American Dream]

Hmmm...

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/03/pale ... savow.html

WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH 2012

Palestinian writers, activists disavow racism, anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon


Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon








Over a decade ago, Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish issued a statement ‘Serious Concerns About Israel Shamir’ concerning the virulent anti-semitism of Shamir. Like Atzmon, Shamir too traded on his Israeli connections, yet his language about Jews as ‘a virus form of a human being’ set alarms bells ringing. His cause was not support of the Palestinians and anti-Zionism but anti-Semitism and holocaust denial. Yet in an e-mail to me (12th June 2005) Atzmon described Shamir as a ‘unique and advanced thinker’.

Atzmon has gone out of his way to support and associated with those who declare themselves ‘proud’ to deny the holocaust. People like Paul Eisen, whose purpose is to ‘contextualize and re-humanize the person of Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist regime, and, indeed, the German people….’

It is therefore extremely welcome that some of the principal writers, academics and activists in the Palestinian community – people like Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada, Omar Barghouti of the Boycott National Council, Professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University and Haidar Eid of Gaza, have put their names to this succinct and devastating statement. It makes clear, above all, that the liberation of Palestine, the Right of Return of the Refugees and the end to Zionism and Apartheid in Israel have nothing whatsoever to do with support for anti-Semitism.

This comes on top of the critique 'Not Quite "Ordinary Human Beings"—Anti-imperialism and the anti-humanist rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon.' headed byAs'ad Abu Khalil of The Angry Arab News Service.

Atzmon rejects the idea that Israel is a settler-colonial state. This merely lets Jews off the hook. In The Atzmon Defamation League, he writes that: ‘As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time .... Israel is a Jewish nationalist settlement project and its Jewishness is inherent to its racist, tribal, exceptionalist nature.’

The logic is impeccable. If Israel is the Jewish state, then it isn’t solidarity with Palestinians that is required but a war against the Jews. BDS hasn’t worked because Israel is not an apartheid settler-colonial state - ‘its power and ties with the West are maintained by the strongest lobbies around the world.’ thus reversing the actual relationship. ‘If the Left wants to stop Israel for real, then it must openly question the notion of Jewish Power and its role within Western politics and media.’

Anti-Semitism is no longer a danger to Jews. It is dangerous for Palestinians. Not only does it threaten to misdirect the movement onto false targets, but it plays into the Zionists’ hands by racialising the struggle. Zionists constantly attack anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’ when they are no such thing. There is nothing more that the Zionist leadership desires than an upsurge in traditional anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism there are no Jewish immigrants to Israel and without immigration there can be no Zionism. It is the lack of such immigrants today, more Jews leave than go to live in Israel, which is, in part, responsible for the political crisis of Zionism.

Those who believe in a latter-day exoneration of Hitler should ponder awhile. Zionist leaders, even during the holocaust, planned for the time when they would be able to reap the political advantage it would give. In the middle of the holocaust their minds were on the Biltmore Conference of May 1942 where the call for a Jewish State was made explicitly for the first time. Ben Gurion’s biographer described how ‘In spite of the certainty that genocide was being carried out, the Jewish Agency Executive did not deviate appreciably from its routine…’ (Teveth, The Burning Ground, 1987 844) Teveth concludes that ‘If there was a line in Ben-Gurion’s mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.’ [851] Tom Segev likewise quotes Ben Gurion: ‘Although I was then chairman of the Jewish Agency executive, the enlistment of the Jewish people in the demand for a Jewish state was at the center of my activity.... the disaster facing European Jewry is not directly my business.’ [The Seventh Million, 98] Throughout 1939 and 1940, Hitler’s war against Europe’s Jews was not discussed once by the Central Committee of Mapai, Israel’s Labour Party and the ruling party of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine). [Ann Porter, Kasztner’s Train, p.66]. Ben-Gurion admitted that ‘In these terrible days … I am still more worried about the elections of the (Mapai) branch in Tel Aviv’ (Segev 1994: 105). For Ben Gurion, ‘The harsher the affliction, the greater the strength of Zionism’ (Teveth 1987: 850).

The holocaust, which Atzmon and his friends question or deny, inevitably and predictably gave a massive boost to Zionism, which before World War 2 was a minority movement among world Jewry. As Theodore Herzl wrote in his Diaries: ‘Anti-Semitism has grown, and continues to grow and so do I.’ [7] It takes a certain sort of genius to want to strengthen the very forces that gave Zionism its critical mass.

The other facet of the struggle today is the growing number of mainly young Jews who are ‘coming out’ against Zionism and Israel. This is something of great concern to the Zionist leaders. As Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods stated when it was founded, we are there to make the Boycott Kosher! To say that boycotting Israel is a perfectly normal thing to do to an Apartheid State and has no more to do with anti-Semitism than boycotting South Africa or Nazi Germany had to do with racism. Jewish activists have been in the forefront of the academic and cultural boycott. Anti-semitism can only reinforce the hold of Zionism.

Tonight none will be more disappointed than Alan Dershowitz, the ADL, Jon Benjamin, Harry’s Place and all the other Zionist echo chambers and court historians for the Apartheid State of Israel. This is not the message that they want people to hear. Atzmon’s utterances are music to their ears and it is for this reason that this statement is all the more welcome. It is a statement that should be widely used against Zionists who seek to exploit the anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon.

Tony Greenstein



Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon

Note: This statement was first published by the US Palestinian Community Network (USPCN) and is authored by all of the undersigned.

March 13, 2012

For many years now, Gilad Atzmon, a musician born in Israel and currently living in the United Kingdom, has taken on the self-appointed task of defining for the Palestinian movement the nature of our struggle, and the philosophy underpinning it. He has done so through his various blogs and Internet outlets, in speeches, and in articles. He is currently on tour in the United States promoting his most recent book, entitled, ‘The Wandering Who.’

With this letter, we call for the disavowal of Atzmon by fellow Palestinian organizers, as well as Palestine solidarity activists, and allies of the Palestinian people, and note the dangers of supporting Atzmon’s political work and writings and providing any platforms for their dissemination. We do so as Palestinian organizers and activists, working across continents, campaigns, and ideological positions.

Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew is to be a Zionist.

Palestinians have faced two centuries of orientalist, colonialist and imperialist domination of our native lands. And so as Palestinians, we see such language as immoral and completely outside the core foundations of humanism, equality and justice, on which the struggle for Palestine and its national movement rests. As countless Palestinian activists and organizers, their parties, associations and campaigns, have attested throughout the last century, our struggle was never, and will never be, with Jews, or Judaism, no matter how much Zionism insists that our enemies are the Jews. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism, a modern European settler colonial movement, similar to movements in many other parts of the world that aim to displace indigenous people and build new European societies on their lands.

We reaffirm that there is no room in this historic and foundational analysis of our struggle for any attacks on our Jewish allies, Jews, or Judaism; nor denying the Holocaust; nor allying in any way shape or form with any conspiracy theories, far-right, orientalist, and racist arguments, associations and entities. Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of Jewish identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on Jewish identities, nor the demeaning and denial of Jewish histories in all their diversity.

Indeed, we regard any attempt to link and adopt antisemitic or racist language, even if it is within a self-described anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist politics, as reaffirming and legitimizing Zionism. In addition to its immorality, this language obscures the fundamental role of imperialism and colonialism in destroying our homeland, expelling its people, and sustaining the systems and ideologies of oppression, apartheid and occupation. It leaves one squarely outside true solidarity with Palestine and its people.

The goal of the Palestinian people has always been clear: self determination. And we can only exercise that inalienable right through liberation, the return of our refugees (the absolute majority of our people) and achieving equal rights to all through decolonization. As such, we stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights. We will never compromise the principles and spirit of our liberation struggle. We will not allow a false sense of expediency to drive us into alliance with those who attack, malign, or otherwise attempt to target our political fraternity with all liberation struggles and movements for justice.

As Palestinians, it is our collective responsibility, whether we are in Palestine or in exile, to assert our guidance of our grassroots liberation struggle. We must protect the integrity of our movement, and to do so we must continue to remain vigilant that those for whom we provide platforms actually speak to its principles.

When the Palestinian people call for self-determination and decolonization of our homeland, we do so in the promise and hope of a community founded on justice, where all are free, all are equal and all are welcome.

Until liberation and return.

Signed:

Ali Abunimah

Naseer Aruri, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Omar Barghouti, human rights activist

Hatem Bazian, Chair, American Muslims for Palestine

Andrew Dalack, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Haidar Eid, Gaza

Nada Elia, US Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

Toufic Haddad

Kathryn Hamoudah

Adam Hanieh, Lecturer, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London

Mostafa Henaway, Tadamon! Canada

Monadel Herzallah, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Nadia Hijab, author and human rights advocate

Andrew Kadi

Abir Kobty, Palestinian blogger and activist

Joseph Massad, Professor, Columbia University, NY

Danya Mustafa, Israeli Apartheid Week US National Co-Coordinator & Students for Justice in Palestine- University of New Mexico

Dina Omar, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine

Haitham Salawdeh, National Coordinating Committee, US Palestinian Community Network

Sobhi Samour, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London

Khaled Ziada, SOAS Palestine Society, London

Rafeef Ziadah, poet and human rights advocate

[compared2what?]

He calls these people, who work hard at imposing their own tribal obsessions on others, the "anti-zionist zionists".

He sure does. That's one of his cutest phrases, as a matter of fact. (Since it more or less equates to "anti-zionist Jews," it's kind of a winking acknowledgment of what he means when he just says "zionists.")

No. Atzmon defines anti-zionist zionists as activists who claim to be anti-zionist, and defenders of Palestinian rights, then use their position within the Palestine solidarity movement to make it all about Jews. They've done immeasurable damage to the movement, while posing as its most fervent supporters and sometimes even speaking on its behalf, using their "street creds" to render the movement as ineffective as possible. For decades, they got away with it, but this began to change as young Palestinian activists began to take over the movement's leadership from the old generation of mostly Jewish leftists who were its principal icons.

Alice --

You have a blind spot. That's not what Atzmon does. And it's not what the Jewish Palestinian solidarity activists he's describing do.
The reason that they appeal for support by arguing that Palestinian solidarity is anti-anti-semitic is that they're countering the argument that only anti-semites criticize Israel, which is the trump card of the opposition and -- as decades and decades of experience have shown -- virtually unbeatable as long as the terms of the argument make playing it possible.

That's just realpolitik. I mean, come on. Do you want to fight? Or do you want to win?

(Also: WHAT immeasurable damage? Examples?)

Today, in the West (mostly the US and Britain), the Palestinian solidarity movement is actually two separate movements: one is led by Palestinians, and its agenda is exclusively focused on Palestinian rights and the most effective way to exert pressure to achieve those rights. The other claims to oppose zionism and defend Palestinian rights, but has very different priorities. From my earlier post:

After the 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza I organized a concert for ‘Medical Aid for Palestinians’ featuring iconic violinist Nigel Kennedy. Campaigners launched an onslaught from all sides - the right, the left, the Zionists and the anti-Zionists - individually and collectively, lobbied the owner of the venue, the director of MAP and myself, demanding that we cancel the event. Some even accused us of mobilizing art to fund rocket attacks on Jews. I was shocked, upset and embarrassed that I had inadvertently dragged my friend, who owns the club, into such a shameful debacle.

This is an excellent example of the hypocrisy of these "anti-zionist zionists": with human lives literally in the balance, they chose to try to discredit Gilad Atzmon, even if that meant canceling a fund-raising event to get vital medical help to the Palestinians who needed it so desperately.

They didn't succeed, and the concert was a "huge success", but once again these moral hypocrites showed how vindictive and unethical they really are:

After the concert (a huge success) I was labeled a Holocaust denier. Not only was this accusation ludicrous and totally unfounded it was potentially damaging to me.

That's the best you can do? Some unnamed "anti-zionist zionists" object to Gilad Atzmon -- which, as we know, they do because he's a liability to the cause -- and that proves that the only thing they care about is Jews?

I'd say it supports the argument that he's intentionally trying to galvanize Israeli opposition towards the Palestinian independence movement, myself. But I guess it might be unintentional.

In either event, have you ever noticed that the only thing that's actually causing all this strife and divisiveness is that Gilad Atzmon insists on continuing to spout inflammatory and objectionable nonsense that serves no constructive purpose? At all?

And the only reason that I'm not saying that its destructive and/or counter-productive effects are obvious is that the most lethal one actually isn't. (To -- shudder -- quote Robert McNamara on war, it's essential to know your enemy. Atzmon -- as I and others have said repeatedly -- is representing Israelis and Jews in terms that he must know are false in order (among other things) to prevent that.)

I regard his calling for "No more Jewish state in Occupied Palestine" -- which is exactly the same thing that Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman and the other people he lists in that post are calling for -- in some unspecified way that evidently somehow makes it different as advocating for the mass extinction of Jews on "racial" grounds.

Because the anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian advocacy of all the people he lists is distinguished by two (2) common factors:

(1) They don't want to see Israel wiped off the face of the map, in the conventional sense of that phrase, which is violent.

(2) They're Jewish.

Again, no. The problem is neither non-violence nor being Jewish. That's silly. They're distinguished by two (2) other common factors:

(1) both explicitly support a Judeo-supremacist state in Palestine, just within the 78% of Palestine that was ethnically cleansed prior to 1967, and condescendingly attack those who do call for one democratic state using all sorts of insulting names, including "childish" and "impractical" (even though it is the "two-state solution" that is simply not feasible, on practical, moral or legal grounds). They don't want to see Israel wiped of the face of the map period, whether through violent or non-violent means. In other words, though neither defines himself as such, both are zionists.

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity and opposes the the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be liberated from anti-Semitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that has occurred in other societies.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. Link

(2) and both oppose the rapidly growing and effective Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign led by Palestinians. Finkelstein specifically opposes it on the grounds that it will lead to Israel's "destruction" (see below) -- although he also ridicules it as ineffective, which is odd. In addition, Noam Chomsky for many years served as a very effective gate-keeper by insisting that Palestine solidarity activists avoid addressing the issue of the Israel lobby in the US and elsewhere, insisting that it was "insignificant" (Hah! tell that to the presidential candidates and members of Congress, and to all those whose political careers were destroyed by it!).

A good rebuttal of Chomsky's attack on the BDS movement can be found in this podcast. I recommend it highly.

In other words, they fully support the Palestinian cause as long as it's hopeless (the two-state solution, if it was ever possible, has been rendered impossible by Israel's own actions over the past 3 decades), and they do everything possible to ensure it remains hopeless, while professing to support it.

I found it sickening, as a long-time admirer of Finkelstein, to see him suddenly channeling Derschowitz no less, in a video that created shock-waves throughout the Palestine solidarity movement. He accuses them (among other things) of being "dishonest", but it was at his personal request that the video was removed from Youtube. Excerpts can still be found here:



Zionists all over the net could hardly contain their glee:

This is a truly remarkable set of statements. Strategically, it’s about the worst thing that could have happened to the BDS movement – to be spanked so thoroughly by one of the leading Palestinian activists in the West.

Luckily, he's wrong. It's an indication of how Palestinian leadership has transformed the Palestine solidarity movement, that both Finkelstein and Chomsky have largely discredited themselves, rather than the targets of their attacks.

I'm no fan of Chomsky's, never have been. But the last time I looked, I thought he was advocating for a one-state solution.

Doesn't matter, though. I agree with you that the Israelis have got to go. I think that the American left, Jewish and non-, is naive to think that any solution is (or ever will be) possible if they don't.

So. Here's a tip for anybody who agrees with me about that:

If your main objective is to make the world-at-large and the Israeli people recognize the injustice of their occupation of Israel -- a country largely occupied by Holocaust survivors, WWII refugees and their descendants, the foundation of which was and is solely justified in the eyes of the world by their status as such -- no matter what else you do, do not continually remind them of the Holocaust by constantly recurring to it in any terms.

Because that's just going to make them feel like they have to fight for their survival and/or serve to legitimize whatever fights they engage in generally in the eyes of the world.

Obviously.

Another tip will be forthcoming shortly.