Gilad Atzmon

GA: The following is my book review of Shlomo Sand's latest book. It was published a year ago. Following the publication of the English edition of How I Stopped Being A Jew last week, I decided to post it again.

Sand’s latest book, How I Stopped Being A Jew, is a tragic testimony made by a morally awakened Israeli Jew who comes to realise that his spiritual, cultural and political existence is contaminated with Judeo-centric exclusivism and is fuelled by ethno-centric racism. Shlomo Sand decides to stop being a Jew – but has he succeeded?

Sand, as we all know, is a wonderful writer; witty, innovative, poetic and fluent, his voice is personal, at times funny, occasionally sarcastic and always genuinely pessimistic.

Sand’s writing is scholarly, deep, reflective and imaginative; however, his scholarship is pretty much limited to French liberal thinking and early post-modernist theory. The outcome is disappointing at times. How I Stopped To Be A Jew is a ‘politically correct’ text, saturated with endless caveats inserted to disassociate the author from any possible affiliation with anyone who may be viewed as an opponent of Jewish power, critical of Jewish identity politics or a challenger of the mainstream historicity of the Holocaust.

“I don’t write for anti-Semites, I regard them as totally ignorant or people who suffer from an incurable disease,” (p. 21/Hebrew edition) writes the author who claims to be humanist, universalist and far removed from Jewish exclusivism.[*] It all sounds very Jewish to me. When it comes to the Holocaust, Sand uses the same tactic and somehow manages to lose all wit and scholarly fashion. The Nazis are “beasts”, their rise to power metaphorically described as a “beast awakening from its lair.” I would expect a leading historian and ex-Jew to have moved on beyond these kinds of banal clichés.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

Jews and philosophy have had a pretty troubled relationship. The collision between ‘the tribal’ and ‘the universal’ or, more accurately, between Jerusalem and Athens, is inevitable. The few great Jewish thinkers who transcended the tribal, such as Spinoza or Otto Weininger, have been harassed and labelled by the rabbis as ‘self haters’ and enemies of the Jews.

Some contemporary Zionist merchants insist upon wrapping their Judeo centrism in crypto philosophical arguments. Bernard-Henri Levy, for instance, advocates his Zionist warmongering using a pseudo ‘moralist’ terminology.

Today I came across a uniquely banal rant by Asa Kasher, a Jewish ‘philosopher’ at Tel Aviv University. Kasher, who also authored the ‘IDF ethical code,’ defended Israel’s military conduct in the recent Gaza campaign in an article published in the Jewish Review of Books.

Kasher wrote, “Hamas unscrupulously violates every norm in the book.” And I wonder, what book? I would like to find out, at a minimum, what ‘book’ grants the Jewish State the right to uproot an entire nation in the name of a Jewish homecoming? Is there a book that permits the Jews to turn a city into an open-air prison? Is there a book that legitimates reducing Gaza into a pile of rubble? I am afraid that the answer is affirmative. There is more than one such book. But these books aren’t exactly philosophical texts. These books are the prime Judaic texts. The Talmud and The Old Testament are suffocated by Goy hatred and stories of Jews and their God pouring their ‘wrath on the Goyim.’ Rabbinical Judaism has historically been very careful in the way it treated some of those vile and barbaric Judaic verses and teachings. But Israel and Zionism draw inspiration from those genocidal verses, and the outcome is evident in the shattered urban landscape of Gaza.

More »

Arthur Aouizerat

Article taken from E&R Brest. Note by Gilad Atzmon: I didn’t write the following article. It is a translation from French. I share this article today because it raised some very troubling issues to do with the deceitful nature of Jewish Left. I guess that by now, it would be impossible to sweep that shame under the carpet.

Through his great historical work, the Israeli historian Israel Shahak(1)demonstrated the relationship between Talmudic Judaism and Zionism. If you happen to reside in France, to properly understand this relationship you need only observe number one sayan (Embedded Israeli agent) Bernard-Henri Levy, as he promotes his Talmudic ideology in support of Israel. The Talmudic-Judaism, as seen in both the Talmud and the Torah is simply law codified in the service of Jewish ideology.

But Bernard-Henri Levy is more than happy to say he acts ‘as a Jew’, but what does that mean? According to Gilad Atzmon’s classification (2), the problem lies not with those Jews who just happen to be born into Jewish families, nor with those religious Jews whose texts are interpreted through the ages. No, the problem is with those Jews who see the world ‘as Jews’ and who act in the world ‘as Jews’. It is this third category that carries and promotes Jewish ideology.

Culturally, this ideology can be understood as follows: ‘Jew’, transmitted through the blood of the mother, is a purely racial quality and cannot therefore be related to any acquired moral or universal qualities. So, when a Jew addresses a goy ‘as a Jew’ he/she simply highlights this racial quality and thus automatically defines the goy, without that, as inherently inferior. In this third category are found Talmudic Jewish-Zionist practitioners, non-practicing Talmudic-Zionist Jews (3), secular non-Zionist Jewish leftists and even anti-Zionists. So we can say that the theologico-racial supremacism as observed in Israel by Zionist Jews is entirely consistent with Jewish ideology.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

I am amused that as the Zionist smear campaign against me and my work has faded, the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists, aka AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists), are ever more infuriated by my thoughts. They are desperate to silence me. They don’t have a chance, but, let’s face it, they have some really good reasons.

The recent events in Palestine have proved beyond any doubt my interpretation of Jewish nationalism and Jewish identity politics. It is not a coincidence that I was the only one to predict the Israeli defeat even before the first Israeli soldier entered Gaza. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, its actions and atrocities must be understood within the context of Jewish culture and heritage. This is my line of thought and this is what I am known for.

Leading commentator, Jeff Blankfort, argued recently that the Jewish Left is not the solution, it is actually a continuation of the problem. I believe that the Jewish Left is not merely a continuation of the problem, it is actually at the heart of the problem. Jewish power, as I see it, is the capacity to silence criticism of Jewish power. In that regard, AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby are not ‘Jewish power,’ they are symptoms of Jewish power. The institutional attempt to silence any debate about Jewish power is provided by the Jewish Left and the so called Jewish anti Zionist network (JVP, Mondoweiss, Chomsky, Blumenthal, etc.). It is the Jewish Left that attempts to set the boundaries of the discussion and dictates what can and cannot be said.

For instance, we may talk about Zionism and Israel but we must never elaborate on the Jewishness of the Jewish state. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it attests to its affinity to Jewish history, and it draws its vile inception from the Old Testament, yet, the Jewish pro Palestinian outlet Mondoweiss, changed its comment policy to ban discussion of Jewish culture in the context of criticizing Israel.

To sum it all up, I am not just an anti Zionist, I am actually critical of all forms of Jewish politics, both Zionist and Anti. I contend that all forms of Jewish politics are ethno-centric and to a certain extent, racially driven. And in my latest book The Wandering Who I substantiate this point and yet to see any attempt to prove me wrong.

More »

Gilad Atzmon Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani for Egalité et Réconciliation

Alimuddin Usmani: As I write to you, the ceasefire has, once again, collapsed between Israel and Palestinian fighters in Gaza. In its attempt to kill Hamas armed wing leader, Mohammed Deif, the IDF failed, and instead killed his wife and infant son. It is increasingly clear that Israel is stuck in this conflict and doesn't know how to end it. You were the first to say that Israel was "desperate for a break in the violence." How were you able to predict this outcome when most analysts failed?

Gilad Atzmon: Unlike the Jewish ‘progressive’ commentators who have dominated the Palestinian solidarity discourse for about two decades, I am a reactionary essentialist. I believe that events in history and politics become meaningful only when analyzed within an rigorous essentialist context. Righteous progressive Jews suffocate the discourse with tons of anecdotal details in order to conceal the Jewish ideology at the core of the crimes committed by the Jewish State and the Lobby. I firmly believe that every Israeli and Jewish collective political activity from AIPAC to Mondoweiss can be understood within the framework of Jewish culture, ideology and heritage.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

Earlier today, just a few hours before the ceasefire collapsed, sources in Jerusalem have disclosed that Israel and the US have agreed to gradually lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip, starting with the land crossings and eventually opening up sea traffic. Hamas, so it seemed, has achieved all of its objectives in the latest round of violence. With sparse resources, limited fire power and obsolete ballistic technology, Hamas managed to bring Israel to its knees.

Plainly, the war was unwinnable for the IDF. Israel invaded the Gaza strip without establishing its own military objectives. The Israeli Government sent its soldiers into the streets of Gaza without understanding its own military, political or diplomatic aims. Both the IDF and the Israeli government were attempting to appease Israeli popular demand for revenge. The Israeli people felt humiliated by the Palestinian rockets. These largely harmless homemade rockets interfered with Israeli escapist philosophy. The rockets’ flare reminded Israelis that there are another people who claim the land, and this people, the Palestinians, are named after the land. Once again polls confirmed that Israelis were bloodthirsty, they wanted to wipe out the Palestinians for good, and the populist Netanyahu government rushed to deliver.

But here is a little surprise; Haaretz reported today that Netanyahu tried to hide the Egyptian cease-fire proposal from his cabinet. His deceit came about because Netanyahu understood that the Egyptian draft represented a total defeat for the Israelis. Israel could have lifted the blockade on Gaza and let the Palestinians have a seaport and an airfield without dragging the region into another war. Netanyahu could have ‘freed’ the Gazans without perpetrating another set of colossal crimes against humanity.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the London Times refused to run an ad featuring Elie Wiesel speaking out against Hamas’ use of children as human shields.

The ad’s headline reads: “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn.” Wiesel’s statement is a blatant lie and the London Times knew it.

Jews have never stopped sacrificing their children. The Hannibal Protocol is an IDF directive that orders soldiers to take ‘necessary measures’ to prevent their comrades from being captured by enemy forces. ‘Necessary measures’ include risking the life of the Israeli soldier and anyone who happens to be in his vicinity. Similarly, the Kastner Affair shows that at the peak of the Shoah, Ben Gurion and the Zionist establishment were willing to sacrifice many Jewish lives on the altar of the Zionist goal.

The growing number of genocides and massacres committed by Jews in the last hundred years suggest that at least some Jews are pretty careless with other people’s children. Wiesel should examine the Holodomor and the role of ‘Stalin’s willing executioners’ as Jewish American historian Yuri Slezkine elucidates in his invaluable book The Jewish Century. Wiesel can also read Israeli Sever Plocker’s declaration that “some of (the) greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish.” Just a few years after the Holodomor, the Yiddish speaking International Brigade murdered Catholics and burned their churches in Spain (1936). The tragic and violent circumstances in which the Jewish State was born didn’t sate the lust for violence among some of its Diaspora supporters, quite the opposite.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

A short interview with «Ο Φιλελεύθερος», Cyprus

Do you have any comments on the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip?

Gilad Atzmon: It is agonizing to watch the brutality of the Israelis, but it was predictable. Israeli genocidal inclinations are entirely consistent with Jewish supremacist culture and Old Testament barbarism. The fact that 91% of the Israeli population supports the IDF massacre confirms that we are confronting a murderous collective that is a grave threat to world peace.

What is Israel trying to achieve in the region? Is it possible it is acting to insure its control of energy resources that may exist off the Gaza Strip?

GA: It is possible that the massacre in Gaza has been lightly influenced by geopolitical considerations. However, the Israeli lust for violence and its broad support from Jewish institutions around the world suggests that the motivation to kill and destroy other people is embedded in Zionist culture. Its homicidal impulses may relate to the manner in which modern Jews interpret their sense of ‘choseness.’

You have often expressed your support of Islamic organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas that have resorted to violence as a means of achieving their objectives. Do you believe that resorting to violence is an acceptable way to achieve political results?

More »

Richard Silverstein

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a superb article by Richard Silverstein. It explores the history and meaning of the IDF’s Hannibal Directive - an Israeli military protocol designed to prevent IDF soldiers from being captured alive by enemy forces. The directive orders commanders to take necessary measures, including endangering the life of an abducted soldier, to foil a kidnapping. In practice, the Hannibal Directive orders IDF combatants to kill their comrades in a case of abduction.

Silverstein is horrified by the directive and its ethical and legal implications. He also believes that such a homicidal protocol is inconsistent with the Israeli military’s alleged heritage of caring for its soldiers.

But Silverstein’s perspective may be mistaken. It must be noted that military and civil law are distinctively different domains. While civil law serves to protect societal and individual rights, military law serves the system as a whole. This explains, for instance, why collective punishment is common and even acceptable within the context of a military legal discourse. It serves the military’s interests as opposed to the rights of individuals. The amusing adage “military law is to law as military music is to music,” captures the ethical absurdity that is entangled with military Law.

The Hannibal Directive is consistent with Israeli national and military interests. From the point of view of Israel’s strategic interests, a captured soldier entails compromises Israel would prefer to avoid.

Silverstein writes, “The Hannibal Directive embraces a fascist perspective in which the individual is subsumed within the mass. He has no specific individual value unless he is serving the interest of the nation. And his interests may, when necessary be sacrificed to the greater good.” Silverstein is addressing the issue from an ethical perspective within the spirit of enlightenment. But Zionism and Jewish nationalism are inherently anti-enlightenment ideologies. Zionism denotes the birth of the ‘Jewish people,’ the idea that every Jew is an integral part of a larger collective with clear tribal interests that outweigh the individual. Accordingly, in an extreme situation, the interests of the tribe are far more important than the individual rights. The Hannibal Directive is a glimpse into the depth of the Jewish collective bond and tribal commitment. It exposes the level of commitment and sacrifice expected of tribal members.

Silverstein identifies the directive as fascist, but he should remember that Zionism predates Fascism and unlike Fascism that was largely defeated, Zionism has so far prevailed.

More »

Gilad Atzmon

IDF’s colossal defeat in Gaza this week leaves Israel and Israelis with just three political and personal options:

1. Mass expulsion – ethnic cleansing of the entire Palestinian population from territories controlled by Israel. Such action may sound unreasonable or even phantasmic, but it is actually consistent with Zionist ideology and has many supporters within Israel and within the current Israeli cabinet. Moreover, oppression and brutality are embedded within Jewish political culture and even within the culture of the Jewish Left[*]. Clearly Israel possesses the military capability and fire power to proceed with such a plan for Nakba II.

2. Exodus – mass emigration of Israelis who, quite reasonably, prefer to run for their lives. This option is obviously embedded within the exilic Jewish culture and completely consistent with Jewish diaspora identity. Emigration is available to most Israelis at the moment. However, it is likely that as violence in the region continues to escalate and Israel finds itself complicit in more and more war crimes and human rights abuse, Israelis may find out that their freedom to travel around the world is gradually restricted.

3. Buying time –Israel’s favourite option. And certainly Benjamin Netanyahu’s preferred policy.

More »