THE HANDSTAND

july 2005

the third Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement

By Gilad Atzmon
01.07.2005

As far as self perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. those who follow Judaism.

2. those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.

3. those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other traits.

Obviously, the first two categories specify an harmless group of people.  We do tend to respect religious people, as they are generally expected to be living inspired by their beliefs and are expected to abide by some sort of a higher spiritual code. Needless to say, we have no problem with the second category as well. One cannot choose one’s origin. We agree that people must be respected and treated equally regardless of their origin or their racial and ethnic belonging.

However the third category is largely problematic. Clearly, its definition may sound inflammatory to some. And yet, bizarrely enough, it is a general formulation of Chaim Weizmann’s view of the Jewish identity as expressed in his famous address at the First Jewish  Congress: “There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.”(1)

According to Weizmann, a prominent Zionist figure, Jewishness is a primary quality. You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism. But above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the 3rd category. It is all about viewing Jewishness as the key element in one’s being. Any other quality is secondary.

This is exactly the message the early Zionists were interested in promulgating. For Weizmann, Jewishness is a unique quality that stops the Jew from assimilating within the nation he is a citizen of. He will always remain an alien. This very line of thinking was more than apparent in most early Zionist writings. Jabotinsky, the founder of right wing Zionism, takes it even further. He is more than firm that assimilation is impossible due to some biological conditioning. Here is what he had to say about the German Jew: "A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical racial type are Jewish." (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 'A Letter on Autonomy', 1904). The reader may notice that these outrageous racist ideas predate Nazism. Jabotinsky wasn’t alone, even the Marxist Ber Borochov who refers the Jewish condition to some historical and material circumstances is suggesting a remedy that is particular to Jewish people, i.e. Jewish Nationalism  in which Jews will practice some proletarian activity, namely production. As it seems, Borochov lets Jews be separated from the international proletarian revolution. Why does he do this? Just because Jews are uniquely Jewish or at least the Zionists tend to believe they are.

However, one may rightly ask whether it was the Zionists who invented this
3rd Category?

In fact, it is not that way at all.

Seemingly, Shakespeare had noticed this very pattern three hundred years earlier. Shylock, the famous money lender from Venice was a proper 3rd Category Jew. He clearly admits that more than anything else he is a Jew who possesses many human features. ‘I am a Jew’ says Shylock, “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?” And yet Shylock insists that he shares many human features: “Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is.” Shylock claims to be essentially similar to the entire humanity: “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?....”(2)Noticeably, according to Shylock the Jew is as vulnerable as an ordinary human being and yet he is primarily Jewish.

This is indeed the essence of Zionism, The Zionist is first and foremost a Jew. He can’t be just an ordinary British citizen who happens to be of a Jewish descent. He is rather a Jew who dwells in Britain. He is a Jew who speaks English, he is a Jew who gets his health services from the NHS, he is a Jew who happens to drive on the left side of the road. He is the ultimate Other. Generally speaking, 3rd Category Jews are the ultimate Others. Just because they are always somewhere at the margins of or apart from any given human condition or human landscape.

Zionist agents

As it seems, Shylock was a Zionist, he fitted perfectly into Weizmann’s model. He was a Third Category Jew. However, Shylock didn’t make it to Palestine. He didn’t engage himself in confiscating Palestinian land. He wasn’t even an Israeli soldier. In fact the Third Category Jew doesn’t have to move to Palestine. Apparently, dwelling in Zion is merely just one possible practice within the Zionist philosophy. In order to become a proper Zionist you don’t have to wander. Sometimes it is actually better if you stay exactly wherever you are. Let us read what Victor Ostrovsky, an ex-Mossad agent, is telling us about Third category Jews.

"The next day Ran S. delivered a lecture on the sayanim, a unique and important part of the Mossad's operation. Sayanim - assistants - must be 100 percent Jewish. They live abroad, and though they are not Israeli citizens, many are reached through their relatives in Israel. An Israeli with a relative in England, for example, might be asked to write a letter telling the person bearing the letter that he represents an organization whose main goal is to help save Jewish people in the diaspora. Could the British relative help in any way?.....There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the list. They fulfill many different roles. A car sayan, for example, running a rental agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could get you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police, and so on. The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed who can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty to the cause. They are paid only costs." (3)

I assume that it must be clear that sayanim are basically Third Category Jews. People who regard themselves primarily as Jews. The sayan is a man who would betray the nation in which he is a citizen just to satisfy a bizarre notion of a clannish brotherhood.

Zionism, an International Network

We are now starting to realise that Zionism shouldn’t be seen merely as a nationalist movement with a clear geographical aspiration. It isn’t exactly a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine. Zionism appears to be an international movement that is fuelled by the solidarity of Third Category subjects. To be a Zionist means just to accept that more than anything else you are primarily a Jew.

Ostrovsky continues:

“You have at your disposal a non-risk recruitment system that actually gives you a pool of millions of Jewish people to tap from outside your own borders. It's much easier to operate with what is available on the spot, and sayanim offer incredible practical support everywhere….Now one might suggest that, for example, Great Britain could use a similar system and recruit among WASPS around the world. But they don't, because they can't. It takes an extraordinary degree of racial solidarity and racial motivation to develop and maintain such a "non-risk recruitment system" and see to it that it works properly. Remember, all of these activities are spying, with long prison sentences if caught. Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry may have some residual loyalties to the old "mother country." But this residue is nothing like the racial solidarity of the Jews. Such racial feelings are so strong and so pervasive among Jews that the Mossad knew in advance that their recruitment system was "non-risk." Britain, Ireland, Italy and the Vatican know better than to try to implement such a thing. (4)

Ostrovsky is talking here about ‘racial solidarity’. But in fact, Jews are far from being a single race. As funny as it may sound, most Palestinians are more racially Jewish than the Ashkenazi Jews.

So if it isn’t a racial solidarity, what is it that leads the sayan to run the risk of years of imprisonment? What did Jonathan Pollard have in his mind when he clearly betrayed his country? What do those 2,000 sayanim here in London have in their minds when they betray their Queen? I assume that we are left here with one possibility: the solidarity of the 3rd Category Jews. It is namely a solidarity of the people who regard themselves primarily as Jews.

I tend to regard Ostrovsky’s testimony as a very reliable report. As we know, at the time, the Israeli government was using every possible means to stop the publication of his books. In fact, this strange Israeli activity was more than an affirmation that Ostrovsky was indeed a Mossad agent and that the story that he is telling is rather genuine.

In a radio interview Joseph Lapid, at the time an Israeli senior columnist, opened his heart and told the world what he thought of Ostrovsky: “Ostrovsky is the most treacherous Jew in modern Jewish history. And he has no right to live, except if he's prepared to return to Israel and stand trial.”(5)

Valerie Pringle, the journalist on the other side of the line asked Lapid: “Do you feel it's a responsible statement to say what you've said?”

Lapid: “Oh yes, I fully believe in that. And unfortunately the Mossad cannot do it because we cannot endanger our relations with Canada. But I hope there will be a decent Jew in Canada who does it for us.”

Pringle: “You hope this. You could live with his blood on your hands?”

Lapid: “Oh no. It's to...only it will not be his blood on my hands. It will be justice to a man who does the most horrible thing that any Jew can think of, and that is that he's selling out the Jewish state and the Jewish people for money to our enemies. There is absolutely nothing worse that a human being, if he can be called a human being, can do”.

Lapid, later a member in Sharon’s cabinet, makes it more than clear: to be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order. It is far more essential than any universal ethical perception. Clearly, for Lapid, Jewishness is not a spiritual stand, it is a political commitment. It is a world view that applies to the very last Jew on this planet. As he says: the Mossad can’t really kill Ostrovsky, thus, it is down to a ‘decent Canadian Jew’ to do the job. As is evident, a Zionist journalist is expressing here the most outrageous of views. He encourages a fellow Jew to commit a murder in the name of the Jewish brotherhood. In short, not only does Lapid affirm Ostrovsky’s report about the world of sayanim, he also confirms Weizmann’s view that from a Zionist point of view, there are no Canadian Jews but only Jews who live in Canada.

I think that the above leaves us with enough room to conclude that at least in the Zionists’ eyes, Jewishness is basically an international network operation. Ostrovsky calls it ‘racial solidarity’, I call it 3rd Category brotherhood and Weizmann calls it Zionism. But it all means the very same thing. It is all about commitment, a global agenda that pools more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous fellowship. Apparently, Zionism is not about Israel. Israel is just a colony, a territorial asset violently maintained by a mission force composed of 3rd Category Jews. In fact, there is no geographical centre to the Zionist endeavor. It is hard to determine where the centre of Zionist decision making is. Is it in Jerusalem? In the Knesset, in Sharon’s cabinet, in the Mossad, or maybe in the ADL offices in America? It might as well be somewhere in Wall Street? Who knows?

But then, it is of course more than possible that there is no decision making process at all. The beauty of a network operative system is that not a single operator within the network is fully familiar with the network but is only aware of his personal role within it. This is probably the biggest strength of the Zionist movement.

Looking at Zionism as a global network operation would determine a major shift in our perspective of current world affairs:

The Palestinians, for instance, aren’t just the victims of the Israeli occupation, they are rather the victims of 3rd Category Jews who decided to transform Palestine into a Jewish national bunker. The Iraqis, are better seen as the victims of the those 3rd Category Jews who decided to transform the American army into a Jewish mission force. The Muslim world should be seen as a subject to some neo-conservative 3rd Category tendency to make Nathan Sharansky’s Democratic ideology into the new American Bible for the 3rd world.

It is pretty depressing indeed.

The Jewish humanist

The Palestinian activist Reem Abdehadi, when asked for her opinion about Jewish anti Zionist campaigners, said sarcastically: “they are very nice, all fifteen of them…”

We must admit that not many Jews are there to fight against Zionism. However, amongst those few who engage themselves in this battle we find some people who insist upon doing so under the Jewish banner, e.g. Jews Against Zionism, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, etc.

While writing this paper I have started to ask myself what category those Jewish leftist groups belong to. Clearly, they do not fit into the 1st Category. Jewish left is a ‘religious’ atheist tendency. They really don’t like to involve God in politics or in anything else. In most cases they are hostile to Judaism and even to those Orthodox Jews who happen to stand up to Zionism. But it isn’t only Judaism that they dislike. They aren’t fond of Islam or Christianity either. Those amongst them who endorse the idea of a one state solution do insist that the future Palestine must be ‘a secular’ and a democratic state’. Not that I am in any position to suggest what the future Palestine is going to be, I would just try to propose that it must be down to the citizens of this future state to decide what type of kingdom they prefer to live in.

Anyhow, those Jewish leftists fail as well to fit into the 2nd Category. They do not regard themselves as ordinary humanists who happen to be of Jewish descent. If they were, they would simply join the Palestinian Solidarity movement like other Jews who prefer to act mainly as humanists. But then, rather than joining the Solidarity Campaign, they form some exclusive political cells that allow them to operate under the Jewish banner.

Consequently, we must admit that they all belong to the 3rd Category. In fact they prefer to regard themselves as ‘Jews who hold some leftist views’. Clearly, amongst those groups you will find some wonderful people who genuinely believe that Zionism is wrong, that Zionism is racist and nationalist. But in fact these people are themselves operating as 3rd Category Jews. They all act politically under a Jewish banner. In practical terms, they all follow Weizmann’s school. Rather than being Humanists who happen to be Jewish (2nd cCategory), they are Jews who happen to be Humanists. But then, since acting politically under a Jewish banner is in fact the very definition of Zionism, it is reasonable to deduce that all Jewish left activity is in practice not more than a form of left Zionism. One may ask whether it is really possible to be a left Zionist? Is there left and right in a network group that is set primarily on a racial category and clannish brotherhood?

The answer is no. There is no left and right within Zionism but rather different right wing political apparatuses. Some Zionist political calls are adopting the shape of left discourse. I had noticed for instance that Jewish Marxists insist upon calling each other comrade. In fact they are mainly engaged in Marxist verbal rituals. But apparently, this isn’t enough. Ideology is more than a mere language game. In reality, those Jewish left clubs are operating as the body shield of the 3rd Category identity. This may explain the fact that as far as the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign is concerned, those groups are primarily engaged in guarding some 3rd Category Jewish interests that have very little to do with the Palestinians and their daily misery.

If to be more precise, those Jewish left groups are engaged mainly in searching for ‘anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and Jew haters. Somehow, they always find them amongst the most active and devoted 2nd Category Jews. As it seems (to me at least), for these Jewish sporadic cells, Palestinian solidarity is just another instrument to draw attention to the myth of Jewish humanism. I will try to be very clear and transparent here. There is no Jewish secular humanism. No doubt many humanists happen to be Jewish and yet there is not a single Jewish secular humanist theorem or text.(6) This is mainly because Jewish secularity is not a philosophical position. It is rather a complete abandonment of God. Jewish secularity is a form of ethnicity based merely on some exclusive tendencies and a vague collective memory of some ritual heritage.

So, is there a Jewish Conspiracy to run the world?

Not really. First it must be clear that 1st and 2nd category Jews have nothing to do with all the above. For 1st Category Jews, being Jewish means practicing Judaism. To follow a spiritual call and to obey God’s law. As we know, Zionism is still far from being popular amongst ultra orthodox Rabbis. However, I must admit that some would rightly argue that following the teaching of the Talmudic law many religious Jews do regard themselves as a chosen category. For me, this simply means that they fall into the 3rd Category rather than the 1st one. This probably applies to the orthodox sects that allied with Zionism throughout the course of time.

The second category Jews have no intention of taking part in any global Jewish networking. They regard themselves as an ordinary and liberated human beings with no special privilege. Amongst the 2nd Category Jews we find the most enlightening emancipated humanists. Those very great intellects that contributed to 20th century liberal and humanist thinking. As we all know, hardly any of them came from Israel or a Zionist faction.

When it comes to the 3rd Category, we are faced with a slight problem. I tend to believe that the 3rd Category Jews are mutually acting together. But then whether they are fully aware of it or not is a big question. Throughout the years they have formed a network that operates as a global Zionist body shield. They simply act in harmony, they protect each other. Even when they fight against one another, they depict an image of pluralism. I think that this is the essence of Zionism’s miraculous success.

A week ago I read a brilliant insight by Rowan Berkeley on Peacepalestine website. Rowan, a Londoner whom I know vaguely, had been flirting in the past with the idea of becoming a Jew. In the following comment he is aiming to explain the common Jewish take on Zionism. In fact, without realising it, he describes the 3rd Category tactic:

First they ask, Do you believe that (Jewish) Nationalism is a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing?

If you say it is a Good Thing, they will direct you to the Jewish Right, which will tell you that Jews have as much of a right to be nationalistic as anybody else does.

If you say it is a Bad Thing, they will direct you to the Jewish Left, which will tell you that you are not allowed to protest against Zionism on any basis other than Marxist or Anarchist Proletarian Internationalism - thus disqualifying almost all the actually existing anti-Zionist movements in the Arab world.

They can get away with this ideological shell game because each individual discursive arena is controlled by one or another Jewish faction.

Yes, I do believe that Rowan’s insight hits the nail right on the head. He is absolutely correct. But then, unlike Rowan I do believe that Jews Against Zionism are genuine. They simply fight Zionism without realising that they themselves are Zionists. Without realising that they are the most orthodox followers of Weizmann’s school. If they are really interested in bringing Zionism down, their tactics are obviously wrong.

I wrote to some of them about the subject before, I have seen some discussion about my views in many different Jewish left circles and yet, I have never come across any argumentative response from any of those sporadic exclusive groups. Rather than being confronted with my thoughts, they are solely engaged in labeling. I have already been: ‘a self hating Jew’, ‘a Christian fundamentalist’, ‘a Holocaust denier’, ‘an apologist for Holocaust deniers’, ‘a neo-nazi’, ‘a Stalinist’, ‘a Zionist agent’, ‘an anti-Semite’ and many more.

Two weeks ago, a small group of Jewish leftists picketed against me in front of a Marxist bookshop. I tried to write to them arguing that if Palestine is on top of one’s agenda, a protest in front of the Israeli embassy or any other 3rd Category Jewish institute would be far more effective. They dismissed my call.

I am fully aware of the fact that crucifying me and burning my books is no doubt a proper 3rd Category practice, but unfortunately it isn’t going to help the Palestinian at the checkpoint. It isn’t going to help the millions of refugees who have been living for almost six decades without elementary rights.

Israel is an inhuman political setup and we therefore must fight it as human beings rather than as sporadic ethnic or religious groups.


(1)(Chaim Weizman, First Zionist Congress 1897).

(2)(Shylock, The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare).

(3) By Way of Deception", Victor Ostrovsky , St. Martin's, 1990 pg 86-7

(4)Ibid pg 87

(5)

Washington Report JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1995, Pages 17, 88

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0195/9501017.htm

I was seated in the Ottawa studios of Canadian Television's "Canada A.M.," getting ready for an interview with Valerie Pringle, hostess of Canada's national morning show. I knew that Josef Lapid, an Israeli columnist and former general manager of the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation, was going to be interviewed before me from Tel Aviv via telephone. He was invited to appear on the show to explain comments he had made about me on Israeli television.

There, on a show called "Popolitika," he had said that Mossad, Israel's external intelligence service, with which I once worked, should arrange for me to have a car accident. He had then elaborated on this in his column in the mass circulation Israeli daily newspaper Ma'ariv, in which he wrote that I should be assassinated and that it should not have to be done by the Israeli government, but rather by an individual who should take responsibility to do the job.

Lapid's wrath was in response to excerpts from my new book, The Other Side of Deception, published in the largest Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot. The book‹published in the United States by HarperCollins‹deals with my activities in and against the Mossad. Following is the transcript of that CTV interview on Oct. 21, the aftermath of which I found to be quite incredible.

VALERIE PRINGLE (Anchor): Victor Ostrovsky is a former member of Israel's spy agency, the Mossad, who wrote the book. I guess the first one that caused an enormous stir was called By Way of Deception: An Insider's Portrait of the Mossad. It angered many people around the world. The Israeli government tried to prevent its publication. Another book is out, called The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad Secret Agenda. Again it's caused a furor. One Israeli columnist has gone on to say that Ostrovsky should be killed for his treachery.

In a moment Victor Ostrovsky will be with us from our Ottawa studio, but first, on the line from Tel Aviv, is that journalist, Josef Lapid.

You've called for Victor Ostrovsky basically to be killed. Why have you done that?

JOSEF LAPID: Well, in this country, as you probably know, Israelis occasionally die for their country. And I don't think that anybody should make a living out of betraying it. I think that Ostrovsky is the most treacherous Jew in modern Jewish history. And he has no right to live, except if he's prepared to return to Israel and stand trial.

PRINGLE: Do you feel it's a responsible statement to say what you've said?

LAPID: Oh yes, I fully believe in that. And unfortunately the Mossad cannot do it because we cannot endanger our relations with Canada. But I hope there will be a decent Jew in Canada who does it for us.

PRINGLE: You hope this. You could live with his blood on your hands?

LAPID: Oh no. It's to...only it will not be his blood on my hands. It will be justice to a man who does the most horrible thing that any Jew can think of, and that is that he's selling out the Jewish state and the Jewish people for money to our enemies. There is absolutely nothing worse that a human being, if he can be called a human being, can do.

PRINGLE: What response have you had to this statement, which is, you know, basically the sort of jihad that Salman Rushdie has had‹or fatwa, sorry.

LAPID: No no no. Rushdie has expressed his views in a novel, and there is no reason why anybody should not express his views in a novel. I am talking about somebody working for the Israeli Mossad and then going abroad and selling for money whatever he learned there. Ninety percent of what he's writing is simply lies and inventions, but there is 10 percent truth, and I'm not against his inventions, but I'm against his telling any truth that he learned here.

PRINGLE: Have you been answered in Israel?

LAPID: ... So this comparing him to Salman Rushdie is a compliment which Mr. Ostrovsky does not deserve.

PRINGLE: Just to briefly wrap up, have you been censured in Israel for what you say?

LAPID: I?

PRINGLE: Yes.

LAPID: Nobody is ever censored in Israel. It's a free country.

PRINGLE: No, but censured! Have people said "this is appalling what you've said. We don't agree with you."

LAPID: Oh, I think, yes, I've had reactions. Some people thought it is appalling. The great majority of the reactions were very favorable. And I think I do express the opinion of the great majority of Israelis and the great majority, too, of Jews anywhere.

PRINGLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lapid. I don't, you know, know about whether or not this is the opinion of Israelis or if they agree with what Mr. Lapid said.

Several things were going through my mind as I was listening to Mr. Lapid. On the one hand I could see the smiling faces of the Judeo-Nazis also known as the "Kahane Chai" people in their paramilitary training camps across Canada and the U.S., rubbing their hands in satisfaction, having just received a call to arms from the so-called "respectable center" of the Israeli political scene. And although this mental picture was disturbing, at the same time I was pleased that at last the public could see the ugly face of Israeli nationalist militancy, demonstrating that Israeli zealots were no different than other extremists in the region.

A Shocking Stranglehold

It was only in the days following that revealing interview that incredulity replaced my satisfaction. I realized that what I had thought to be an Israeli influence on American and Canadian media through the Jewish community in the United States and Canada was in fact a stranglehold. Many thousands of people must have heard for themselves Lapid's call to "any decent Jew in Canada" to assassinate me on behalf of the state of Israel. But the subsequent refusal of the North American media to report the appeal, much less condemn or even discuss it, was more shocking and far more frightening to me than the call itself.

I then realized that the occupation of the North American media is complete. In subjects dealing with the Middle East in general and Israel in particular, there no longer is a free press.

Had this call for assassination been made by a Muslim, that same media would have been all over it, first reporting the story and then keeping it alive by themselves, or provoking responses from Muslim leaders the world over. And should such respondents not be unequivocal in their opposition to such a call, they would instantly have been branded terrorists and, needless to say, "anti-Semitic."

I had always known there was a double standard when it came to dealing with subjects that were dear to the Jewish community. I had not known, however, how hypocritical that community and the media that lie at its feet can be. I had known for some time that this community has all but taken over the film industry and has a strong grip on Washington, having the strongest lobby there. Now, through intimidation and double dealing, it obviously has taken over large portions of the media. To all those who knew this all along, and were silent, and to those who remain silent now ‹ shame on you.

Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad case officer, is the author of two exposes of Israeli covert action, By Way of Deception, published in 1990, and The Other Side of Deception, published in 1994.

{end}

Ostrovsky knows that being famous keeps him alive.

Victor Ostrovsky, now living in Canada, hosts a weekly radio show called Spytalk

(6) If anything, Zionism in its early days was aiming towards the establishment of such a philosophy, a form of Jewish secular ethics. Obviously such an attempt was doomed to failure. Just because Zionism is unethical by definition, being that it engages in the continual ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian people.




GILAD ATZMON BLOWING UP A STORM


An edited and shortened version of a private email exchange between Tony Greenstein and Gilad Atzmon which was posted by Tony Greenstein on JPUK. Many have asked for wide distribution, Mr Greenstein in primis. Basic typos have been corrected and it has been arranged into a dialogue style to aid in comprehension, yet the content remains unvaried. An unabridged version is available here
(
http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/Greenstein-Atzmon.html).



T: I note that in the tirade below, (The Elders of London*) you accuse Jews Against Zionism and myself of being 'undercover Zionist agents of influence'.

G: As it seems, you are calling for Jews to act under their ethnic/racial banner. i.e. Jewishness. I was sure that as a Marxist you should aim to let Jews become ordinary human beings i.e. equal comrades, rather than an isolated and segregated ethnic group.

T: By your own admission you are distributing Eisen’s holocaust denial text.

G: Holocaust Denial is in itself a Zionist terminology and I refuse to accept it or to use it.

T: I understand that you have been distributing Paul Eisen's most recent The Holocaust Wars which denies, in the course of defending Ernest Zundel, that there ever was a holocaust or extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis.

G: Mr Greenstein, True, I circulated Paul Eisen's paper. I do believe that argumentative texts must be circulated as widely as possible. I am sure that in case you have a counter argument to suggest Paul will be delighted to address it. By the way, my take on the subject is slightly different than Paul's one and yet, I found Paul very attentive to my criticism. Furthermore, let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I’ll be the first to circulate it. This is my way, that is what I believe in.

T: You admit you only disagree ‘slightly’. By your own admission you are condemned as either a knave or a fool or more probably both. I haven’t the slightest intention of engaging with holocaust deniers, any more than I have time to waste on flat earthers.

G: I assume that if you had just a hint of integrity you may have realised along time ago that the Holocaust doesn't lead necessarily to just one 'conclusion'. First, there might be more than one and if this is not enough, it might even provide us with more than one moral lesson (in case you don't realise, a moral lesson is a dynamic process while a conclusion is a firm and fixed idea). For me, the Holocaust like any other historical narrative is a dynamic process of realisation and interpretation. For me to be in the world is to be engaged in a dynamic process of interpretation. For me and not only me...Judaism at its very best is merely a dynamic critical process of re-reading and re-writing. For me the beauty of Judaism is conveyed by the imagery of a single Biblical page: a few lines of Biblical text and many different interpretations around it (deconstruction). On the other hand, Jewishness in its lowest form is the aim towards the imprisonment of meaning and fixation of ideas. In that very sense, I am very sorry to tell you Mr. Greenstein, you are presenting the lowest form of rabbinical and talmudic Jewish existence. You try to determine meanings and to stop any possible critical scholarship and interpretation. As bizarre as it may sound, Mr Paul Eisen, a man you try to destroy for being an anti-Semite, is presenting us with the ultimate beauty of Judaic thinking. Unlike you, Eisen is engaged in interpretation (Parshanut). Eisen is engaged in a process of re-reading and re-writing. Eisen follows the most radical form of orthodox Judaic spirit.

Let me tell you, Eisen was raised as a Jew, unlike you he managed to internalise the essence of Judaism, this is enough to make him into a very important voice. If you were a real Jew rather than just a shallow form of talmudic Zionist you would stand up to Eisen and fight with his
interpretation with dignity. But as it seems you are incapable.

Instead of doing that you prefer to act under your Jewish banner whatever it means (something that you do constantly). You run campaigns solely with your Jewish comrades (rather than in the forefront of world working class). Rather than joining or even forming a humanistic open discourse, you try to stop the world from moving on. You insist on locating your worldview in the
centre of any possible discourse. Why do you do it? Because you are a supremacist Jew. You must believe that you know better. You must believe that you know better than the SWP what is important for the British working class. You must think that you know better than the Palestinians what is right for the Palestinian people. Are you familiar with the notion of modesty? Just contemplate over the remote possibility that you may not know better......Let me tell you Mr. Greenstein, Marxism isn't an internal Jewish affair (it may had been for a while, but not any more) and so with the Palestinian cause. It is our duty (as human beings) to show our support to the Palestinian people but we are not allowed to tell them what to do. We are not allowed to tell them what is right or wrong, we can only offer ourselves as soldiers, this is what Paul is doing, this is what I try to do.

Your frequent usage of the word 'insist' (you insist that the SWP kick me out and you insist that DYR will spit out Shamir or Eisen etc.) reveals a clear image of classic Jewish supremacist tendencies. You blame others for being white supremacists, just because you are daily engaged in supremacist practices. Considering the clear fact that you can't even present a simple argument. I would conclude that you should scrutinise your own conduct. You better look in the mirror Mr Greenstein, you better get used to the idea that you are just an ordinary human being like all of us, you can't 'insist' anymore, you can only suggest, and you better be polite about it.

T: Not that this should be any surprise given your association with Israel Shamir, who makes a habit of supporting and defending white supremacists.

G: With all due respect, you won't find any support for white supremacists in any of my writings. If you read my writings you will find the very opposite. I am against any form of supremacism. I wrote 2 books about the subject. Anyhow, I assume that you have a serious problem with Shamir, and yet I do not know what do you mean by the term 'association'. As you should know I am not a politician and not even a political activist. I am an artist: I am a musician and a writer. The notion of association means nothing to me. I am not a member in any party, I act solely as an individual. I am interested in Shamir’s writings as much as I am interested in any other writer who supports the Palestinian people. For me Palestine is more important than all those childish political games. I believe in freedom of spirit and freedom of speech. I would fight for you or anyone else in case someone would try to censor your writings. But then, let me admit, you are right about one thing, I am not associated with any pro Palestinian Jewish organisation. I do believe that the Palestinian cause is a human issue, it is far more important than Jewish politics. I hope that sooner rather than later you will realise it yourself.

T: I didn’t accuse you of supporting white supremacists, I stated that you associate with Shamir who supports white supremacists. That is clear from his web site, his repetition of the blood-libel myths and his collaboration with neo-Nazis.

G: I already addressed the association issue, again you use a terminology that is inapplicable to me. I am not associated with anyone. I am reading Israel occasionally, I think that he is a very important writer. But at the same time I would read every paper written by Brenner. I just read, I am a reader and a writer.


Again, it is possible that you associate me with Shamir but this is your problem.

T: I certainly wish to see a speedy end to Deir Yassin Remembered. It can only do great damage to the Palestinian cause in so far as it is led by a holocaust denier and associated with another virulent anti-Semite.

G: As you may know, I performed in DYR this year and it was one of the most emotionally moving events I’ve ever taken part of. Mind you I am performing every night for over 25 years. You insist to bring DYR down, and let me tell you, this is enough to make you into a Zionist.

T: Some, who draw the necessary conclusions from the holocaust, will hold that racism whomsoever it is directed against is wrong and will therefore adopt anti-Zionist and indeed anti-fascist politics.

G: For a change I am in total agreement with you, I am against racism and in fact in my writing you won't find a single racial reference. Moreover, when I write about Jewish identity I analyse it in ideological and philosophical terms. For me Jewishness is a mind set. Nothing to do with the quality of one's blood or the religion of one's mother.

T: Ironically it also mirrors the Zionist libel that anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism.

G: I agree with you and this is another reason for me not to come with such a conclusion. And yet you blame me for being an Anti-Semite just because I am ridiculing yourself and your own shallow Marxism. Mr Greenstein, I must let you know that to be a Marxist is not just a 'language game', It is not enough to call someone a 'comrade' and to expect him to remove Gilad Atzmon
from his conference. To be a Marxist is to be a critical thinker. But then not only that you aren't critical, you engage in censorship of any possible critical thinking. Basically you follow the most devastating Rabbinical practices. No wonder why you act as 'Marxist Jew' rather than just a Marxist. You probably regard Marxism as an internal Jewish affair, this may explain the fact that you allow yourself to come to the SWP with demands.

T: I have no intention of taking lectures in respect of Marxism from someone who is supportive of Eisen's thesis that the holocaust didn't happen.

G: This may be true but somehow you don't stop visiting my mail box. Being educated as a German philosopher I am very interested in different aspects of Master Slave dialectic (Hegel). Thus, I wonder why you are begging for my recognition. Why do you take the role of the slave in this debate? I ask just because I am really not interested in being your master or anyone else’ s master.

T: Clearly it is outrageous that a socialist organisation should invite you to their annual beanfeast. However that is their problem, not mine.

G: Apparently it isn't their problem. They are very happy with it, this will be my third appearance in the conference. But somehow you aren't happy at all. You keep humiliating yourself sending them lengthy letters and get a short clear cut dismissal.

If you have any dignity in your system you better take a rest. Look for enemies somewhere else.

With Love and Peace
Gilad Atzmon





http://www.gilad.co.uk

An attack on Deir Yassin Remembered. The director, Dan McGowan, responds: 

The Current Campaign to Smear Deir Yassin

Since early this spring there has been a campaign in the United Kingdom to smear Deir Yassin Remembered, primarily because of Israel Shamir being placed on the Board of Advisers (over a year ago), but also because of the writings and comments of our UK Director Paul Eisen and one of our guests at this year’s main DYR London commemoration, the reknowned jazz musician Gilad Atzmon.  There have been a lot of false accusations levied at DYR, most coming from Tony Greenstein and Deborah Maccoby, whom Gilad quite accurately nicknamed The Queen of the Cyber Shetel.

Greenstein recently published an article in which he said, “The argument over Gilad Atzmon is a side issue. Atzmon is the mere mouthpiece for a Swedish/Russian fascist called Israel Shamir. This is someone whose followers have taken over an organisation called Deir Yassin Remembered, whose co-director is a Paul Eisen. In an e-mail of 12th June, Atzmon wrote to me that "Indeed I correspond with Shamir occasionally. I find him an extremely charming man and rather entertaining. But more to the point, my ties with Shamir are merely intellectual. I regard Shamir as a unique and advanced thinker."

Arguing in cyberspace with the likes of Greenstein and Maccoby is a waste of time, but I would like to point out to our members a few salient points:

Shamir is an Israeli.  He may have been born in Russia, lived in Sweden, studied in England, visited Japan, or whatever, but the bottom line is that he is an Israeli.  He fought for Israel (in 1973); he lives and works in Israel; one of his sons lives there; his wife lives there; and his mother lives there.  Greenstein and Maccoby claim to be anti-Zionists in safe and civil London; Shamir is an anti-Zionist in Israel.  The difference is obvious.

Shamir has contributed to DYR for several years, both financially and in kind.  Three years ago he was our featured speaker in Kuala Lumpur and in Australia.  This year’s speaker was Uri Davis, another real anti-Zionist and a dedicated opponent of Israel Shamir.  But unlike Greenstein and Maccoby who try to hurt DYR, Uri Davis has worked with us and with our wonderful directors Colin Andersen, Hishammudin Ubaidulla, and Avigail Abarbanel (who, by the way, is also an Israeli).

Jeff Halper left the DYR Board in protest to Shamir being on it, but Jeff has not attacked DYR.  To the contrary he helped us with this year’s DYR ceremony in Jerusalem and he helped our filmmaker who came from Canada to record the event.  He may disagree with the views of Paul Eisen in his seminal article “Jewish Power,” but he does not call him an anti-Semite, or a self-hater, or a Holocaust denier or some other epithet.

Gilad Atzmon supported DYR and gave a wonderful performance for us at St. Johns Wood Church in London on April 9th.  The event was packed with Arabs, Jews, and others.  It was our most polished commemoration of over 30 we did this year.  Gilad has been very generous towards DYR and does not hesitate to speak the truth towards Zionism.

Tony Greenstein has written, "I certainly wish to see a speedy end to Deir Yassin Remembered."  He is not alone; I am sure this sentiment is shared by Elie Weisel, Alan Dershowitz, Abe Foxman, and other Jewish supremacists, who try to erase Palestinian history.  But our growth and your continued support will disappoint them all.