Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[AlicetheKurious]

So, I assume, without knowing that for sure, that he will be faced with difficulty identity choices once the "antisemite" brand sticks.

It can't stick because it's not true, and things have changed a lot, especially in the past 6 years or so: would-be Inquisitors are just not as influential as they once were. In fact, it's become sort of a litmus test: those activists who continue to insist that he's a racist and should be excommunicated and won't be convinced otherwise are the ones who have compromised their own credibility. It's they, especially the aspiring gate-keepers, who have some hard questions to answer about their own identity choices, and the role they've chosen to play from within the movement.

The issue is, that the circles where he hangs out, demand that a person disavow his jewishness to become a trusted member of the "left" or "universalist humanist" or what not. This demand, in turn, creates a boomerang from the Jewish community, seeing any "leftist" as "convert" or "antisemite" etc.

That's not true at all. What people need to disavow is 'Jewishness' as their PRIMARY identity, and treating everything else as secondary. Leftism is about putting one's humanity first, certainly above tribal identity. There's no rational reason for Jewishness conferring greater "credibility" or legitimacy in speaking about Leftist, still less Palestinian issues. Yet all too many Leftists act as though it does, and wave their Jewishness around like a scepter. Consequently, we get absurdities like self-appointed spokesmen for the Left and for the Palestinians channeling Abe Foxman and Alan Derschowitz, defaming people with accusations of 'antisemitism' and dispensing and withholding kosher certifications for those wishing to contribute to the Palestinian solidarity movement.

I basically agree with many of his insights but I dont see them connected to the palestinians at all neither do you, i take it.

I think his multi-disciplinary exploration of identity is fascinating and valuable on its own, but because he also examines the ideology that validates the oppression of Palestinians and is relentlessly demanding war after war, of course it's connected. Not just for the Palestinians, but for Americans, and British, and everyone else who pays a price for it. One reason I've been defending Atzmon throughout this thread, is that through the years he's opened my eyes to so many things that would have otherwise gone right over my head. Maybe if they'd been more familiar with Atzmon's ideas, the excommunicators wouldn't have fallen into the trap they did. Or maybe they are so vulnerable to professional and other pressures in the American context that they are effectively compromised and had little choice. At least now we know.

You phrased your assessment carefully, that the hope for near future change of policy within the Jewish community/israel is not high. But that's different than saying there's something basically inherent in that community that cannot change which is where he might have been going, not sure.

I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but he clearly differentiates between people, religious faith, and the dominant ideology, and he argues that it is the third that is problematic, by reinterpreting reality as a monolithic (and fundamentally pathological) victim narrative. Atzmon would probably contend that the "community" indeed cannot change, as long as this ideology continues to dominate within the "community".

[American Dream]

http://geniza.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/ ... m-part-ii/

Atzmon’s anti-Semitism, Part II

Early in the essay which finally caused the Atzmon controversy to boil over on Indymedia UK, Atzmon says the following:

Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle. For instance, the deadly battle between the ‘righteous’ David and the ‘evil’ Goliath personalises the struggle between the ‘good’ Israelites and the ‘bad’ Philistines. Though the Biblical specific tale could be understood in a mere literary terms, the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning.

One of the distinguishing actions of the bigot is to attack one specific ethnicity for a weakness all humans share. A Klansman in the US, for example, would attack African-Americans for being lazy and stupid, as if laziness and stupidity were not general commodities on display, all too sadly, in every culture on earth.

Atzmon begins his anti-Semitic essay with a similar form of attack. History shows that the tendency to simplify conflicts is universal, but Atzmon particularizes it as a weakness of one particular group. Nowhere in the essay does he indicate that the weakness in question exists anywhere except among his targetted group.

Which group? Initially, the Israelis. However, apparently unsatisfied with merely attacking the Israelis in a bigotted manner for having their share of a universal human weakness, Atzmon then names his real target: Jews.

Just to make certain that we grasp his point, Atzmon then writes:“However, Israelis are not alone here. The tendency to personalise and concretise history is rather common amongst Jews.”

I respond, the tendency to particularize general human characteristics to specific ethnic groups (“the Judaic worldview”) is extremely common among bigots, and this is exactly what Atzmon has done, in a clear display of his anti-Semitism. One hardly has to limit oneself to inspecting “the Judaic worldview” to see “history and ethics … reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle.” Yet to him this kind of oversimplification is a characteristically Jewish thing.

[hava007]

Regardless of his own thoughts on the matter, it joins the long tradition of hostage taking, that so characterizes the "conflict", and the intricate games between the various forces. Basically, life IS too short. I wish him all the best and music is a worthwhile endeavor, I am always for those characters in Le Carre's novels whose innocence gets them in trouble, sometimes big trouble. I watched some vids on Cat Stevens recently, he is back to music, and that's great. In Atzmon's case, at least the conditions are good, he is having a good life, this enhanced his musical career as well. that's a better model than the others. The rest has to do with politics, I am not such an expert on that.

So, I assume, without knowing that for sure, that he will be faced with difficulty identity choices once the "antisemite" brand sticks.

It can't stick because it's not true, and things have changed a lot, especially in the past 6 years or so: would-be Inquisitors are just not as influential as they once were. In fact, it's become sort of a litmus test: those activists who continue to insist that he's a racist and should be excommunicated and won't be convinced otherwise are the ones who have compromised their own credibility. It's they, especially the aspiring gate-keepers, who have some hard questions to answer about their own identity choices, and the role they've chosen to play from within the movement.

The issue is, that the circles where he hangs out, demand that a person disavow his jewishness to become a trusted member of the "left" or "universalist humanist" or what not. This demand, in turn, creates a boomerang from the Jewish community, seeing any "leftist" as "convert" or "antisemite" etc.

That's not true at all. What people need to disavow is 'Jewishness' as their PRIMARY identity, and treating everything else as secondary. Leftism is about putting one's humanity first, certainly above tribal identity. There's no rational reason for Jewishness conferring greater "credibility" or legitimacy in speaking about Leftist, still less Palestinian issues. Yet all too many Leftists act as though it does, and wave their Jewishness around like a scepter. Consequently, we get absurdities like self-appointed spokesmen for the Left and for the Palestinians channeling Abe Foxman and Alan Derschowitz, defaming people with accusations of 'antisemitism' and dispensing and withholding kosher certifications for those wishing to contribute to the Palestinian solidarity movement.

I basically agree with many of his insights but I dont see them connected to the palestinians at all neither do you, i take it.

I think his multi-disciplinary exploration of identity is fascinating and valuable on its own, but because he also examines the ideology that validates the oppression of Palestinians and is relentlessly demanding war after war, of course it's connected. Not just for the Palestinians, but for Americans, and British, and everyone else who pays a price for it. One reason I've been defending Atzmon throughout this thread, is that through the years he's opened my eyes to so many things that would have otherwise gone right over my head. Maybe if they'd been more familiar with Atzmon's ideas, the excommunicators wouldn't have fallen into the trap they did. Or maybe they are so vulnerable to professional and other pressures in the American context that they are effectively compromised and had little choice. At least now we know.

You phrased your assessment carefully, that the hope for near future change of policy within the Jewish community/israel is not high. But that's different than saying there's something basically inherent in that community that cannot change which is where he might have been going, not sure.

I wouldn't presume to speak for him, but he clearly differentiates between people, religious faith, and the dominant ideology, and he argues that it is the third that is problematic, by reinterpreting reality as a monolithic (and fundamentally pathological) victim narrative. Atzmon would probably contend that the "community" indeed cannot change, as long as this ideology continues to dominate within the "community".

[AlicetheKurious]

Oh, AD, you have sunk to a new low: copying & pasting from an obscure anonymous blog, (closed to comments, naturally) a blog that is devoted entirely to attacking Atzmon? The blogger calls himself "geniza", no less. How pathetic you are, you and your loser pal Tony Greenstein. This thread has confirmed everything my instincts always told me, about you and your phony "activism".

[hava007]

Appears AD was refuting your assessment that "it won't stick" but who knows. I realized, I think, that AD merely reflects what is cooking within the HQ of some groups from the mainstream american left, cant identify it now precisely, for lack of knowledge, so its important to listen not so much argue, as these are decisions that are taken by groups, and I definitely am in no position to influence anything, even if my arguments are compelling (which they rarely are, I admit, as here I usually mostly rant and "process"). If some groups with public weight decide that someone is an antisemite, then its quite useless examining their reasoning, ex post facto, and even during the process of decisions, which goal is political gain and not truth. The position of these groups is definitely westo-centric, and patronizing towards the native residents of the ME, the Israelis included if not the first to be ignored.

I have had a last brush with the field here in Israel doing some "palestinian-Israeli youth meetups", to find out that indeed things have changed, to the extent that - 1/ competition over resources places most ISraeli arabs politically on the side of Israel, not palestine. 2/ the peace activists are directed to do work within Israel proper with the Arab minority, where a lot of money is flowing, and some , very little work with Palestinians. The local arabs are well, economically to the point many are working with the gov and are less radical than the Jewish dissidents, (the antisemites I guess) who are mostly leaving Israel, to germany and other places (uk as well and of course the US). PErsonally, and I think many are feeling the same, one is fed up with both arabs and jews (TM) , the good people are within the eco communities do not want to hear about politics, because one always feels dishonesty and danger, from all parties. the israeli "left" is gone, what is there are a few Gay-Lesbian activists, (mostly they are used by Zionist hasbara), mostly males, former Intel-IDF (Such as 8200), who are not my type and are very young anyway. So, the Atzmon type is kind of nostalgia...
There's also some work done among "new agers" from both Palestine and Israel, that's long range and some budgets to take arabs to Poland to see the holocaust or something. Usually, all these projects depend on money coming, I dont know who from, probably some rich person who dumps a few millions and everyone is happy to take it.

[American Dream]

Here is more:

http://geniza.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/ ... zmon-pt-i/

What motivates the defenders of Atzmon? Pt I

An Indymedia UK editor gives an impassioned plea against the no-platforming of Gilad Atzmon, using as an example the figure “Israel Shamir.” This is an ethical mistake; the example he uses even more so.

Source.

“A few years ago, Gilad Atzmon wrote an article about the demonisation of Israel Shamir. . . .

I had quite a long chat with Israel, and I was impressed by his passion for justice. This was before his banishment from the Palestinian solidarity movement by a group whose behaviour Atzmon claimed amounted to ‘modern Jewish secular intolerance.’ He described the process:

‘The liberal Zionist cell, as we are going to read, cannot really take it. They demand the cleansing of Shamir. They insist upon ruining his intellectual career or at the very least, his reputation. They would use any possible manipulative strategy to have him thrown out of DYR, which is the first step towards sending him beyond the pale.’

He asserted that his readers that the episode was ‘a glimpse into the abusive, assertive and violent world of Zionist lobbying.’”


There’s one problem with Atzmon’s version of events, which the editor seems to accept so unquestioningly: it’s fundamentally wrong.

Who no-platformed “Israel Shamir”? It wasn’t “the liberal Zionists” as Atzmon claims — even if one grant’s Atzmon’s peculiar definition of the word “Zionist,” which to him appears to mean “anyone who self-identifies as a Jew and thinks Atzmon’s an anti-Semitic crank.”

“Israel Shamir” was clearly no-platformed by the pro-Palestinian movement as a whole, not just the Jews within it. In fact, the first important criticism of “Shamir” came from Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada, and Hussein Ibish.

The open letter.

See also Wikipedia for more gems from “Israel Shamir,” the man who so impressed the Indymedia UK editor with his “passion for justice.”

What Abunimah — by no imaginable stretch a Zionist figure — has to say is worth repeating, because it’s just as appropriate when applied to the anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon as to the anti-Semite “Israel Shamir”:

“Many people have welcomed the contributions of Israel Shamir in good faith, but we feel they may not be paying close enough attention to what he is saying. Perhaps this is because many of us welcome criticism of Israel from someone who appears to be an “insider,” that our hunger for validation from Jewish Israelis sometimes allows us to proceed without the requisite skepticism or overlook excesses we otherwise would not tolerate. Perhaps some are ready to overlook statements that appeal to anti-Semitic sentiments because the person making them identifies himself as a Jew. But the identity of the speaker makes such statements no less odious and harmful. We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric. Such sentiments will harm, not help, the cause. We urge all our friends in the movement for Palestinian rights to seriously consider the long-term effects this rhetoric will have on the cause, and act accordingly.

The no-platforming of “Israel Shamir” was a triumph over bigotry within the Palestinian solidarity movement, but to the Indymedia UK editor — and his bizarrely skewed version of history — it was a tragic lynching by the Zionists. After all, “Shamir”‘s friend and admirer Atzmon has told him so, so it must be true — that it was “leftist Zionists” who knocked “Israel Shamir” off his pedestal, and they were now planning to do the same thing again:

“And now the same group that went for Shamir are gunning for Atzmon. They are demanding that we kick him out. . . It worries the shit out of me that Indymedia might just give them [i.e. what Atzmon calls "the liberal Zionist cell"] their first taste of blood in this new kill.”

The editor is right in part; the principled disassociation of the Palestinian solidarity movement from the rank anti-Semite “Israel Shamir” should be followed, for the same reasons, by their principled disassociation from the rank anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon. He’s wrong, though, about what those reasons were. Atzmon — just as “Shamir” did before him — waves the “Zionist censorship” flag, and the editor is so helplessly transfixed by it, he doesn’t stop to consider that it’s not “a liberal Zionist cell” but anti-Zionists who are calling for Atzmon to be no-platformed.

Characteristically, though, the Indymedia UK editor can see no actual anti-Semitism in “Shamir,” and concludes he was simply persecuted with false cries by those who metaphorically “killed” him (by no-platforming his racism).

As we’ll see, this is part of a pattern for the editor, who scurries to the defence of anti-Semite after anti-Semite — Atzmon and others — to save them from “Zionist censorship” and “false cries.” This then is the framework from which the Indymedia editor blocked the no-platforming of Atzmon: a routine inability to detect anti-Semitism others see without difficulty (or else this is only pretended blindness), and a routine assignation of “Zionist censorship” as the true motivation of attacks on such anti-Semites.

One of the other editors provides a very simple reply:

very wordy stuff.

are you sure you’re onsite with the spirit of the editorial guidelines?

i don’t think you are.

cheers

I don’t think he is either. He defends anti-Semites and attacks those who condemn anti-Semitism. He can’t tell Zionists from anti-Zionists. I think he’s definitely lost the plot. But then losing the plot is a prerequisite for defending Gilad Atzmon.




December 27th, 2007

[hava007]

Symbolic case

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... s-1.406819

Tags: Egypt Haifa Jerusalem Tel Aviv

An Israeli lawyer was arrested this week on suspicion of defrauding two Egyptian banks for NIS 19 million and laundering the money.

Attorney Jaser Asraf, 38, of Baka al-Garbiyeh, allegedly received the money from the Egyptian banks to file a suit on their behalf against the Custodian General and Jerusalem's King David Hotel. The Krayot Magistrate's Court, near Haifa, on Wednesday extended his custody by five days.


Another lawyer from Asraf's office was also arrested, but released later in the day when it transpired he had not knowingly participated in the alleged swindle.

In 2007 Bank Misr and the National Bank of Egypt hired Asraf to file a law suit of over NIS 660 million, claiming they had documents attesting to ownership shares in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

The police said the suspect did not file the suit, but took some NIS 19 million, which he charged the two banks in fees and expenses.

The Egyptian connection to the hotel dates back to 1929, when the Mosseri family, wealthy Jewish bankers from Egypt, decided to build a luxury hotel in Jerusalem. The family established the Palestine Hotels company and purchased, together with other wealthy businessmen, a plot of some 18 dunams from the Greek Orthodox Church on Julian's Way (today King David Street) in the city at a cost of 31,000 lirot, a huge sum at the time.

Attorney Hala Hamdan of Jaffa, today legal adviser for NBE, told Haaretz that in order to build the hotel the company took loans from two Egyptian banks, NBE (then Bank Mosseri) and what is today Bank Misr.

When the State of Israel was established the contact between the banks and the hotel was severed. Meanwhile the hotel, whose name changed from Palestine Hotels to King David, changed hands several times and is today part of the Dan Hotel chain. However, throughout the period, the banks kept their ownership shares of the property in Israel.

In 1979 the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt stipulated that each state may file property claims against the other. On the basis of this the Egyptian banks started looking into the possibility of claiming rights in the King David Hotel.

Several years ago NBE appointed Asraf as its legal adviser. The bank says Asraf told bank officials that in June 2007 he had filed a huge suit at the Tel Aviv District Court against the Custodian General and the hotel's owners for more than NIS 660 million.

Superintendent Aharon Galor, head of the fraud division investigating the case, said the lawyer was obliged by law to pay a NIS 4 million court fee.

However, he allegedly gave the court a fraudulent check for this amount and took a receipt. The check bounced, but the lawyer changed the amount on the receipt to NIS 8 million and sent it to Egypt for payment.

The bank allegedly paid him the money and added one million dollars and a few hundred thousand shekels for expenses and lawyer's fees. Altogether Asraf allegedly got NIS 15 million from NBE and NIS 4 million from Bank Misr.


King David hotel, after its establishment.

Just instance, the lawyer is a palestinian (israeli arab).That's quite symbolic of the survival of communities here, regardless of their ethnicity/nationality. Of course its not always the case, but one cannot really know where people stand according to their nationality. Basically, the Israeli Jewish dissidents to Zionism have domestic case against the state of Israel which the Arabs dont share of course, and the two issues are connected but not entirely and not always. Of course, usually nobody would here your arguments without alliance with some good ol enemy (palestinians, iranians and so forth), which goes back to what I mentioned about the need to democratize the Jewish community. So by mutual interest, and so far, people like Naorei Karta would piss the government this way, and the Mizrahi Movement joined, in part (a small but important) with some arab rights groups, and so forth. I am sure the other party is doing that for the same reasons, both yield attention and power. Basically, in Israel if one does not extort by threat, one is totally "transparent". Perhaps the same in the Arab communities and anywhere where "law" is merely a suggestion.

[Sounder]

AD, do you consider Jeff Blankfort to be anti-Semitic?

[AlicetheKurious]

It's true that Ali Abunimah has been, until now, one of the most genuinely respected figures in the Palestine solidarity movement, and he's earned that respect. Thus, I can respectfully, but strongly disagree with him about Gilad Atzmon (just as I respectfully but strongly disagree with compared2what? and others on this board (not AD, though).

Hussein Ibish is a very different case.

Ikhras (which means "shut up!" in Arabic) is an indispensable resource for anyone who wants to know who's who in the Arab-American scene inside the US. The web-site is inspired by this:



and also from Iraqi journalist Montazer el-Ziadi's courage in throwing his shoes at President George W. Bush. It is "A Website Dedicated to Throwing the Proverbial Shoe" at "house Arabs".

Hussein Ibish, a Lebanese-American professional collaborator par excellence, is a frequent target of shoes, as is the organization he heads, the so-called "American Task Force on Palestine".

ATFP Board Member’s Business Links With Israeli Army: More “Cooperation Towards Peace”?
October 10, 2010

Marwan Atalla: One Of ATFP's "grassroots Palestinians"

A board member at The American Task Force on Palestine which operates as the lobbying firm for the Israeli-sponsored, Western-funded, and American-supervised collaborationist Palestinian regime in Ramallah, has been conducting a very lucrative business relationship with an Israeli military firm. The ATFP has recently had to defend its ongoing relationships with AIPAC and other racist, Zionist groups. Hussein Ibish, the Washington concierge to PNA officials, has gone as far as describing such meetings with AIPAC and other fanatical Zionist groups as “cooperation towards peace.” How will he describe this revelation?

"A board member of the Washington, DC-based American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) is a major investor in an aerospace company that does millions of dollars of business with an Israeli military defense contractor that has close ties to the Israel Defense Forces and whose headquarters occupy the land of a Palestinian village ethnically-cleansed in 1948.”Link

Hussein Ibish: “Arabic Translator” And Fraud
July 6, 2011

Hussein Ibish, the collaborationist Palestinian Authority’s (PA) chief propagandist in Washington and Salam Fayyad’s occasional concierge, is a fraud and a liar. He doesn’t speak, read, or write Arabic, but it doesn’t prevent him from confirming the accuracy of translations of Arabic into English. The following is from a 2009 article:

I checked out the translation with two Arabic speakers, who confirm that it is accurate. Hussein Ibish, Executive Director of the Foundation for Arab-American Leadership and a Senior Fellow of the American Task Force on Palestine, e-mails me that “such declarations are in keeping with a good deal of the rhetoric of Hamas and some of its supporters.”

How can someone who doesn’t read or understand Arabic confirm the accuracy of any translation from Arabic into English? Stop lying to Americans Hussein. Although you don’t speak Arabic we’re sure you know what Ikhras means. Do it. Link

Jeffrey Blankfort On Ibish & Zogby
January 12, 2012

[Ikhras Note: The following was a comment by Jeffrey Blankfort.* It's not just Arab-Americans that reject the political pandering of establishment Arabs. Palestine solidarity activists and all Americans opposed to the US policy in the Middle East have been equally frustrated with Washington Arabs that are busy garnering mainstream media acceptance and clamoring for photo-ops with US officials. Although these opportunistic careerists are unwilling to address the false narratives and assumptions of American officialdom, principled social activists and other Americans of all backgrounds do not hesitate to do so. ]

Ibish does not walk around in the West Bank. He spends his time burnishing the bottoms of the lords of Washington, but not by walking. The last time I saw him he was unable to look down and see his feet. The American Task Force for Palestine (ATFP) is to AIPAC and the Zionist establishment what the Washington Generals were to the old Harlem Globetrotters, winning six games and losing more than 13,000, according to Wikipedia. They were on the court to give the audience a feeling that the Globetrotters had some competition although everyone knew the outcome in advance. (Before black basketball players were accepted in the NBA, the Globetrotters offered the only postgraduate opportunities for black stars to make a living, such as it was, on the basketball court.)

Before Ibish was with the ATFP he worked for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) which invited Colin Powell to address its national convention during the first Gulf War (along with Michael Lerner!). When the SF Bay Area chapter complained about the speaker selection, Ibish threatened to suspend the chapter from the national organization. No major Arab-American organization has had a leader committed to justice for Palestine since former senator James Abourezk and attorney Abdeen Jabarah were at the ADC and that was a long, long time ago..

Jim Zogby, [who] founded the Arab American Inst. was once among that group until he decided to play the same game as Ibish, only in a more sophisticated way. It was Zogby who advised Rev. Jesse Jackson not to raise the issue of Palestinian statehood at the Democratic Convention in 1988–the year of the Intifada– despite the fact that resolutions supporting Palestinian statehood had been passed by seven state conventions. When I wrote a critical piece on him in the Middle East Labor Bulletin in the 90s, entitled, “If you can’t beat them, join them,” Zogby complained that I was being unfair and that he had to feed his family.

Ibish has co-authored articles with Zionist fanatics like Jeffrey Goldberg and dined with the Israeli Ambassador representing the Zionist Foreign Ministry of Avigdor Lieberman. Ibish also collaborates with the pro-Israel lobby, including AIPAC, and other racist, Zionist groups. He even “debated” a fanatic colonial-settler from New York who currently lives as an armed squatter in occupied Palestine 67. Ibish has also donned a black-tie tuxedo and offered standing ovations to war criminals like Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair. Link

By now we also expect [Hussein Ibish] to condemn all forms of resistance to Zionist colonial occupation, refer to armed Palestinian resistance as “terrorism” and “violence”, and cavalierly dismiss any effort by the International Solidarity Movement including the campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as unhelpful or ineffective. As far as our unreasonably reasonable peace processor is concerned any opposition to the Zionist colonial project by anyone anywhere is immoral, illegal, or futile. Instead he argues for the pernicious notion that there is an acceptable and permanent form of Zionism which the Arabs must accept and come to historical terms with. And according to Hussein the best strategy to go about realizing this vision is by befriending the pro-Israel lobby which, in turn, makes you appear moderate and respectable enough to pander to the political class in Washington. The results might not be immediate but among the benefits of this patient strategy is a yearly opportunity to don a black-tie tuxedo and have a US official attend your annual gala.

Hussein has now sunk even further than we thought was possible, even for him. Last week Ibish tweeted a link to an article by Shawan Jabarin, the general director of Al Haq, an independent Palestinian human rights organization in occupied Ramallah. We usually skip over the links Hussein provides in his twitter feed. They’re mostly articles pulled from Zionist rags or English-language pieces written by Arab Neo-cons and journalists on the Saudi payroll, but being familiar with Jabarin and the work of Al Haq we decided to click on the link. The article we discovered simply addressed the pattern of settler violence in occupied Palestine 67. It was so straight forward and non-controversial we would expect it to be tolerated even by the standards of Washington to which Hussein must adhere, or so we mistakenly thought.

After receiving criticism for tweeting the article condemning settler violence on Palestinians Hussein tweeted the following: “Some people annoyed I tweeted a link to an op-ed by Shawan Jabarin. When does the idea that links, RTs don’t constitute endorsement sink in?” Hussein apologetically disassociated from and refused to endorse an article which was simply condemning settler violence on Palestinians which has been on the increase. Link

[American Dream]

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/720/op63.htm

Semites and anti-Semites, that is the question

Today the real victims of Western anti-Semitism are Arabs and Muslims, argues Joseph Massad*



December 2004

There is much misunderstanding about the term "anti-Semitism" among Jews, Arabs, and European Christians. The term is bandied about as a description of attitudes deemed anti-Jewish, and on occasion anti-Arab, but much of its use is anachronistic and ahistorical. While Zionists and their supporters have been using the charge of anti-Semitism against any and all who oppose Israel and its policies, especially, although not exclusively, in the Arab World, Arabs have taken offense countering that they are "Semites" and therefore by definition cannot be "anti-Semitic". What are the merits of such arguments?

Perhaps some history will help: The term "Semite" was invented by European philologists in the 18th century to distinguish languages from one another by grouping them into "families" descended from one "mother" tongue to which they are all related. In this context, languages came to be organised into "Indo-European" and "Semitic", etc. The philologists claimed that Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, etc., were "Semitic" languages, even though philologists could never find a parent Semitic language from which they all derived.

In the 19th century and with the rise of European biological racism, those who hated Jews could no longer rely on religious difference to mark out post- Enlightenment Jews as objects of their hatred. As religion was no longer part of the argumentation that could be used in a "rational and scientific" Europe, a new basis for the hatred of Jews had to be found. This did not mean however that certain religious ideas could not be rationalised. They often were. In keeping with the Protestant Reformation's abduction of the Hebrew bible into its new religion and its positing of modern European Jews as direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews, post- Enlightenment haters of Jews began to identify Jews as "Semites" on account of their alleged ancestors having spoken Hebrew. In fact the ancient Hebrews spoke Aramaic, the language in which the Talmud was written, as well as parts of the bible. Based on this new philological taxonomy and its correlate racial classifications in the biological sciences, Jews were endowed with this linguistic category that was soon transformed into a racial category. Accordingly, haters of Jews began to identify themselves as "anti-Semites". Thus the object of hatred of European anti-Semitism has always been European Jews.

The claims made by many nowadays that any manifestation of hatred against Jews in any geographic location on Earth and in any historical period is "anti-Semitism" smacks of a gross misunderstanding of the European history of anti- Semitism. While oppression of, discrimination against, and hatred of communities of Jews qua Jews are found in many periods of European history, the basis for this hatred is different from modern anti-Semitism, as its inspirational sources are not rational science and biology or Enlightenment philology, but religious and other political and economic considerations that scapegoated Jews. This may not be important for those who want only to produce a lachrymose history of European Jews, but it is crucial to the understanding of how the identities produced since the European Enlightenment are different from preceding periods, and that they function as new bases for nationalism, racism, oppression, discrimination, and liberation, and for the modern mechanisms put in place to institutionalise such identities and categories of humans.

The defensive claim made by some that Arabs cannot be "anti-Semitic" because they are "Semites" is equally erroneous and facile. First, I should state that I do not believe that anyone is a "Semite" any more than I believe anyone is an "Aryan", and I do not believe that Arabs or Jews should proudly declare that they are "Semites" because European racists classified them as such. But if the history of European Christian anti-Semitism is mostly a history targeting Jews as objects of discrimination and exclusion, the history of European Orientalism and colonialism is the one that targeted Arabs and Muslims, among many others. This does not mean that Arabs are not considered Semites by European racialist and philological classifications; they indeed are. Nor does this mean that much of the hatred of Arabs today is not derived from a prior anti- Semitism that targeted Jews. Indeed it is. The history of European Orientalism is one that is fully complicit with anti-Semitism from which it derives many of its representations of ancient and modern Arabs and of ancient Hebrews and modern Jews. As Edward Said demonstrated a quarter of a century ago in his classic Orientalism, "what has not been sufficiently stressed in histories of modern anti-Semitism has been the legitimation of such atavistic designations by Orientalism, and... the way this academic and intellectual legitimation has persisted right through the modern age in discussions of Islam, the Arabs, or the Near Orient." Said added: "The transference of popular anti-Semitic animus from a Jewish to an Arab target was made smoothly, since the figure was essentially the same." In the context of the 1973 War, Said commented that Arabs came to be represented in the West as having "clearly 'Semitic' features: sharply hooked noses, the evil moustachioed leer on their faces, were obvious reminders (to a largely non- Semitic population) that 'Semites' were at the bottom of all 'our' troubles."

This is important, as many people in the Arab world and outside it think that European Jews are the ones who called themselves "Semites", rather than European Christian racists who invented the term. Of course this misunderstanding is understandable given the fact that Zionism, which adopted wholesale anti-Semitic ideologies, would also call Jews "Semites" and would begin to consider Jews as Semites racially from the late 19th century to the present. In this sense not only do many Arabs think that "Semites" is a Jewish-invented category but so do many European Jews who were (and in some contexts remain) victims of this anti-Jewish designation.

But this is different from the spurious claim that "Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic because they are Semites." There are Arabs today who are anti- Jewish, and they borrow their anti-Jewish rhetoric not from the Palestine experience but from European rhetorics of anti-Semitism. The point is that Arab Christians and Muslims can be anti-Jewish just as Jews can be, and American and Israeli Jews often are, anti-Arab racists, even though many among these Jews and Arabs use the category "Semite" for self-classification. Indeed a large and disproportionate number of the purveyors of anti- Arab racism in today's United States and Israel as well as in Western Europe are Jews. But there is also a disproportionate number of Jews among those who defend Arabs and Muslims against Euro- American and Israeli racism and anti-Semitism. The majority, however, of those who hate Arabs and Muslims in the West remain European and American Christians.

It is often pointed out by Zionists and their supporters that holocaust denial in the Arab world is the major evidence for "Arab anti-Semitism". I have written elsewhere how any Arab or Palestinian who denies the Jewish holocaust falls into the Zionist logic.

While holocaust denial in the West is indeed one of the strongest manifestations of anti-Semitism, most Arabs who deny the holocaust deny it for political not racist reasons. This point is even conceded by the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Orientalist Bernard Lewis. Their denial is based on the false Zionist claim that the holocaust justifies Zionist colonialism. The Zionist claim is as follows: Since Jews were the victims of the holocaust, then they have the right to colonise Palestine and establish a Jewish colonial-settler state there. Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly "moral" argument. But the fact that Jews were massacred does not give Zionists the right to steal someone else's homeland and to massacre the Palestinian people. The oppression of a people does not endow it with rights to oppress others. If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.

Anyone who believes in social justice and opposes racist oppression must be in solidarity with all holocaust victims, especially European Jews, 90 per cent of whom were exterminated by a criminal and genocidal regime. Such a person must equally be against the Zionist abduction of the holocaust to justify Israel's colonial and racist policies. The attempt by holocaust deniers to play down the number of holocaust victims is obscene, as whether one million or 10 million Jews were killed, the result is still genocide and this would never justify Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. Such obscene number games on the part of holocaust deniers are hardly different from Zionist Jewish denial of the Palestinian nakba and are also similar to the continued Zionist attempts to play down the number of Palestinian refugees. While the nakba and the holocaust are not equivalent in any sense, the logic of denying them is indeed the same. I should stress here that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and most Palestinian intellectuals have spoken and written since the 1960s of their solidarity with Jewish holocaust victims and have attacked those who deny it took place. Unlike the official and unofficial Israeli denial of the expulsion of the Palestinians and the numbers of the refugees, those who deny the holocaust among Palestinians have no position whatsoever inside the PLO nor any legitimacy among the Palestinian intelligentsia.

Today we live in a world where anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred, derived from anti-Semitism, is everywhere in evidence. It is not Jews who are being murdered by the thousands by Arab anti- Semitism, but rather Arabs and Muslims who are being murdered by the tens of thousands by Euro- American Christian anti-Semitism and by Israeli Jewish anti-Semitism. If anti-Semites posited Jews as the purveyors of corruption, as financier bankers who control the world, as violent communist subversives, and as poisoners of Christian wells, the Arab and the Muslim today are seen as in control of the oil market and therefore of the global financial market, the purveyors of hatred and corruption of civilised Christian and Jewish societies, as violent terrorists, and as possible mass murderers, not with some Semitic Jewish poison but with Semitic Arab nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (which are nowhere to be found). Thus Michael Moore feels vindicated in telling us in his recent film, Fahrenheit 9/11, about the portion of the American economy controlled by Saudi money while neglecting to mention the much, much larger American share of the Saudi economy. Anti- Semitism is alive and well today worldwide and its major victims are Arabs and Muslims and no longer Jews. The fight should indeed be against all anti-Semitism no matter who the object of its oppression is, Arab or Jew.


* Joseph Massad teaches modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York.

[slimmouse]

One can only begin to wonder where the liars, murderers and thieves would be on this planet without the benefit of their faux labelling ?

Understanding this to me has been a great benefit in considering the pros and cons of this entire thread.

Divide conquer, kill and profit, divide conquer kill and profit et cetera. I do believe I spoke a few pages ago about how we all continuously fall for this bullshit of squabling over such contrite created articulations ( despite essentially agreeing about most things) ,whilst most of the rest of humanity is on exactly the same page, but cant see the woods for the trees.

What say you AD, as you continue your "anti semitic" facade ?

[Sounder]

More at link
http://www.deliberation.info/my-pro-pal ... -reviewed/

My Pro-Palestine CD Reviewed & then ‘Un-reviewed’

by Rich Siegel
Thursday, April 5th, 2012

One of the people who liked it was Brent Black, a jazz writer who runs a website that features his reviews called criticaljazz.com. His review, which he published on March 23, 2012, was actually quite humorous in its irony, making no bones about the fact that he disagreed with my politics, but liked my music- a lot. He wrote:

"Had someone told me two years ago I would have been reviewing the work of an anti-Zionist peace activist, a request that this individual be drug tested would be the expected response from those few that travel in my inner circle.”

But then he wrote: “From a purely musical perspective, Siegel is a gifted instrumentalist with rich vocals that glide effortlessly along with his playing.” And: “The Way To Peace is a stellar recording.” He concluded: “You can respect an opinion and disagree with it. To oversimplify Siegel’s music as that of the ‘peace movement’ would be disingenuous at best. Instead Siegel presents us with an eloquently stated, musically pristine offering of himself and shares a piece of what is in his heart….Isn’t that what art is all about?” Obviously I was pleased with the review.

I received an e mail this morning from Seattle-based pianist/composer Bill Doerrfeld, who, incidentally, shares my views on Palestine. Bill had some news to share with me. He had viewed the following, which reviewer Brent Black had posted on the Facebook page that acts as a companion page to his website (in lower case here, just as Brent wrote it):

"my humble apologies to my jewish friends for reviewing rich sigel (sic) an anti-zionist peace activist that supports the destruction of israel. had i know (sic) who he was and what he was all about i never would have given him 30 seconds of my time. his review is pulled and e mail blocked. again my apologies i stand with israel NEVER against her but firmly against her enemies.” (caps on “NEVER” Brent’s) Obviously a bit different from his review, which had, in fact, been pulled."

The claim that I support the destruction of Israel is pure libel. I have never made any statements advocating the destruction of Israel, or the destruction of anyone or anything. The irony here is that in his review Black made it a point to separate his disagreement with my politics from his assessment of the music I brought to the world in this new recording. He obviously flushed that integrity down the toilet with his libelous pronouncement and decision to pull the review. Who got to him in the less than two weeks the review was up? I don’t know.

From Brent Blacks “expected response from those few that travel in my inner circle” comment, one might assume that he is referring to his inner circle as being made up of staunch Zionists.

It is good to know that both Zionists and anti-Zionists are united in their horror at the self-hating anti-Semites who foolishly think they can live their lives outside of the tribal imperatives they were born with.

his review is pulled and e mail blocked.

As per requirements from the high priests of inversion.

[hava007]

oops

[American Dream]

http://tv.thestruggle.org/node/837

The Atzmon Affair


A group of renowned Palestinian activists have called for disavowal of one Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli ex-Jew now living in Britain. They include Ali Abunimah, Naseer Aruri, Omar Barghouti, Haidar Eid, and Joseph Massad.

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

It’s signed by over 20 Palestinians including Ali Abunimah, Omar Barghouti, Joseph Massad and Naseer Aruri

Read the full statement here.



Another statement signed by As’ad AbuKhalil and several score other non-Palestinian activists

is located here.



Why criticize this man, a noted jazz musician, who fiercely condemns Zionism and Israel? Well, take a look at a selection of quotes from his latest book, “The Wandering Who” gathered by Stanley Heller Click here.




New 4/4/2012 Interview with Tony Greenstein, foremost opponent/domumenter of Atzmon in the UK



The man enjoys flirting with all sorts of anti-Jewish themes and is the perfect useful idiot for Zionists who claim that the Palestinian rights and liberation movement is all based in hatred of Jews.



We are weak in money and power. Our treasury is only full of morality and truth. We have to be very careful not to squander any of it. We need to walk the straight and narrow and not give the haters the least bit of help.

[slimmouse]

We are weak in money and power. Our treasury is only full of morality and truth. We have to be very careful not to squander any of it. We need to walk the straight and narrow and not give the labellers the least bit of help.

Edited for clarity, lest we fail to understand the crux of the problem.

Seriously AD, can you not quote a fukin word without resorting to people who perpetuate the problem by resorting to the said crass labels ?

Do you have any thoughts of your own ?

Do you even understand any of it ?

I could of course point these fingers at others in this discussion. Indeed I would were it not for the fact that essentially AFAIC Atzmon sees it as I see it.

And thats very dangerous to some.

People are dying courtesy of crass labels. People are making excuses for these deaths and endless amounts of suffering courtesy of the said crass labels. People, who essentially understand the stupidity of all of this are being distracted by crass labelling.