PQC: When Professor Shlomo Sand’s books “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland” first published, there was a wave of panic not only within the Jewish world but the world of “nationalists” at large. For Shlomo Sand’s thesis, with strong evidences, negates all the dream of “special identity” special “race” of any “special nation.” But when Gilad Atzmon published “The Wandering Who”, the whole Jewish world (left, right, centre etc) is terrified. Gilad Atzmon’s arrow of “wandering who” has pierced through the heart of the Jewish most dark secret lying deep in the Jewish psyche.
As far as I am concerned, the findings in this book can even apply tightly to the “Chinese Han” and the “Viet Kinh”, who always claim their racial purity despise the obvious otherwise. (well, at least the Mother Fairy of all Viet did not give birth to Viet babies directly. She gave birth to hundred EGGS first, then these hundred eggs later “hatched” out hundred boys. Don’t ever ask who these boys would later fuck to keep the “Viet race” expanding! I don’t know, and the “hi-story book” did not tell!
That’s why Shlomo Sand can still go around making “discussion” with some Jewish communities around the Western world, but Gilad Atzmon cannot. He is totally banned by Jews and their Jew fearing Goyim! Jews as a whole dislike Shlomo Sand, but hate and fear Gilad Atzmond. But they cannot afford to ignore “The Wandering Who” the way they ignore Ron Unz “American Pravda”. Jews and Jew fearing Goyim alike have attacked “The Wander Who” and its author. You need to read “The Wandering Who” in its entirety to understand the exact reason why!
Being in Time
One may be left perplexed on learning that just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz (1945) the newly-formed Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of the indigenous population of Palestine (1948). Just five years after the end of World War Two, the Jewish state brought to life racially-discriminatory return laws in order to prevent the 1948 Palestinian refugees from coming back to their cities, villages, fields and orchards. These laws, still in place today, were not categorically different from the notorious Nazi Nuremberg Laws.
This unique institutional lack of compassion deserves some attention. One might expect the victims of oppression and discrimination to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle against evil. One might expect the victims of oppression and discrimination to not visit the same fate on others. This expectation never happened as far as the Jewish State is concerned. With millions of besieged Palestinians, Israel has given itself the reputation of a pariah state.
How is it that the Jewish political and ideological discourse fails so badly to draw the obvious and necessary lesson from history and Jewish history in particular? How is it that in spite of ‘Jewish history’ appearing to be an endless tale of Jewish suffering, Israel and its lobbies are so blind to any form of ethical or universal thinking? How is it that, in spite of the Holocaust, Israel and Jewish lobbies invest so much energy in evoking hatred towards enemies of Israel and world Jewry?
As we have discussed, within the context of Jewish identity politics and Ideology, history doesn’t play a guiding role.
As Sand noted, instead of history, the Torah provided Rabbinical Judaism with a spiritually-driven plot. It conveyed an image of purpose and fate. However, things changed in the 19 th century. Due to the rapid emancipation of European Jewry together with the rise of nationalism and the spirit of Enlightenment, assimilated European Jews felt bound to redefine their beginning in secular, national and rational terms. This is when Jews ‘invented’ themselves as ‘people’ and as a ‘class’. Like other European nations Jews felt the urge to posses a coherent narrative.
Inventing history is not exactly a crime – people, organisations and nations often do it. Yet, in spite of the rapid process of assimilation, Jewish secular ideology and politics failed to encompass the real meaning of historical thought. Indeed, the assimilated secular Jews was very successful in dropping God, they managed also to drop their symbolic identifiers such as the skullcap and the kaftan . And yet, the assimilated Jews failed to replace divinity with an alternative anthropocentric ethical and metaphysical realisation.
The newly-born Jewish political identity was, indeed, quick to invent history. Yet, not a single Jewish attempt to replace God with a Jewish secular anthropocentric moral system has been noted110. In short, when Jewish secular humanists are preaching to us in the name of ‘Jewish values’ we had better challenge them and verify what values they are referring to.
I only recently understood that the Jewish secular project is not only foreign to history and ethical thinking, it is actually detached from the notion of temporality.
Temporality is inherent to the human condition. ‘To be’ is ‘to be in time’. We are hung between the past that is drifting away into the void and the unknown that proceeds towards us from the future. Through the present, the so-called ‘here and now’, we meditate on that which is past, and hope for forgiveness. Ethics, as reflected by Kant’s categorical imperative, is also bound up with temporality: ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’. Kant reviews the moral act in respect to its temporal perspective. The universal law is looked upon from the perspective of the future and past. Ethics and temporality can be seen as an endless dialogue between ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’.
The present should be understood as a creative dynamic mode where past premeditates its future. But far more crucially, it is also where the imaginary future can re-write its past. I will try to elucidate this idea through a simple and hypothetical yet horrifying war scenario. We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all.’
The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran. As we know, Israeli officials threaten to flatten Iran rather too often. In practice, pre-TSS Israelis make this devastating scenario into a possible reality.
Seemingly, Israelis and Zionist politicians fail to see their own actions in the light of history. They fail to look at their actions in terms of their consequences. From an ethical perspective, the above ‘imaginary’ scenario is there to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Yet, as we all know, Israel and its lobbies are desperate to dismantle the so-called ‘Iranian threat’. My explanation is simple. The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel thinks in terms of an extended present.
Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future.
To a certain extent, history revisionism is the true essence of historical thinking for it reshapes the past through an imaginary future perspective and vice versa. Revisionism is imbued in the deepest possible understanding of temporality, and therefore inherent to humanity and humanism. It is obvious that those who oppose historical revisionism are, in practice, operating against the foundations of humanism.
This philosophical outlook is not very flattering to Jewish discourse and identity politics. Jewish ideology and political discourse openly opposes revision and revisionism. Similar to the Judaic precept, Jewish politics is there to fix and cement a narrative and terminology, and it would oppose any historical revision or reformism. The Zionist ideology presents itself as a historical narrative, and it took me many years to grasp that Zionism, Jewish identity politics and ideology were actually crude, blunt assaults on history, the notion of history and temporality. In fact, Jewish national politics is an attempt to place the people of Israel beyond historical temporality. Once the Jewish past is cemented and sealed, the fate and the operative actions can be deduced: from a Zionist prospective, the Diaspora Jews should adhere to and support the homecoming project, the Palestinian people should clear the space, Western superpowers should finance it all, and so on. Such a vision alienates its followers from temporality and ethics. Those who still insist on criticising the validity of the Zionist argument are silenced. Those who follow the Zionist and Jewish political philosophy are doomed to drift away from humanism and humanity.
Such an explanation starts to throw light on Israeli conduct and Jewish support for Israeli war crimes.
Inventing a past is not the most worrying issue when it comes to Israel and Zionism. As I mentioned before, people and nations do tend to invent their past. However, celebrating one’s phantasmic past at the expense of the other is obviously an ethical issue, and in the case of Israel the problem goes deeper. It is the attempt to seal yesterday that led to the collective ethical collapse of Israel and its supporting crowd. Instead of a celebration of life through transformation of meanings, Zionism was there to promise redemption via a blind acceptance of a single narrative. It promised to bring the ‘wandering’ to an end. It promised to bring about a ‘new Jew’, a civilised being, an ethical character. Establishing a fictitious, unchangeable past, Zionism aimed to deliver the Jews an eternal redemption through an exclusivist and racially-oriented homecoming project. Jewish politics in general and Zionism in particular should be realised as attempts to place the people of Israel beyond temporality. The Marxist East European Bund invented the ‘Yiddish Nation’ that was supposed to save the Jews via the communist revolution, Zionism invented Jewish exile in order to create the pretext for ‘homecoming’. Once the Jewish past is cemented and revision is prohibited, the Jewish fate becomes a matter of logical deduction. This is also when compassion and ethics evaporate.
The dismissal of temporality, the lack of capacity to reflect upon oneself from the futuristic perspective, explains the Israeli collective complicity in some of their horrendous war crimes. This should be enough to explain why the Israelis sliced up the Holy Land with separation walls and barbed wires. It explains why Israelis drop White Phosphorous on their next-door neigh-bours as they seek shelter in a UN shelter. It also explains why Israeli Navy Seal commandos ended up executing peace activists on the Mavi Marmara on the high seas. It also explains why newly-born Israel was quick to expel the vast majority of the Palestinian indigenous population just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz. These events have nothing to do with the colonialist nature of the Jewish state as some Marxist ideologists insist. They may have something to do with the racist, supremacist, chauvinist ideology that fuels Zionism, and must be grasped in philosophical and metaphysical terms. We are not talking here about sociology, psychology or material determinism, we are actually searching for categorical understanding.
People who defy the true meaning of history are alienated from temporality. People who cannot revise their past are doomed to fail to comprehend the notion of consequence, causality and ethics. People who defy history never look in the mirror. They are doomed to think that anti-Semitism is an ‘irrational’ social phenomenon that erupts ‘out of nowhere’. Accordingly they must believe that the Goyim are potentially mad. Bear in mind that the Goyim are the vast majority of the human population.
That which is called ‘Jewish history’, is actually a relentless attempt to narrate the past from the point in time where Jewish pain is detected. I would argue that the appropriate temporal approach would be to ask what is it that brought so much hatred on the people of Israel. I would even take it further and ask, is there anything that we know nowadays about Jewish culture that may help us to understand the Jewish past and Jewish suffering? Can Israeli behaviour throw light on the events that led to the Holocaust, or other instances of persecution of Jews?
The relentless clinging to a phantasmic, invented yesterday is there to provide the false and very misleading impression that the tomorrow can be also determined. Seemingly, by the means of self-imposed blindness, Israel has led itself into an inevitable disaster. Clearly, Zionism failed to answer the Jewish question. Yet it may be that the conditions created by enlightenment, liberalism and emancipation cannot be easily addressed by any form of Jewish political collectivism except orthodoxy, which is pretty much impervious to enlightenment, liberalism, individualism and emancipation all together. If this is indeed the case, Jewish secular collectivism is disastrous. As we come to the end of this text, it seems as though the Third Category’s political, ideological and identity discourse cannot be sustained.
However, Israel is not alone. As tragic as it appears to be, America and Britain have managed to willingly give up on temporality. It is the lack of true historical discourse that stopped Britain and America from understanding their future, present and past. As in the case of Jewish history, American and British politicians insist on a banal and simplistic historic tale to do with WWII, Cold War, Islam, 911 etc. Tragically, the criminal Anglo-American genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, AKA ‘The War against Terror’, is a continuation of our self-inflicted blindness. Since Britain and America failed to grasp the necessary message from the massacres in Hamburg and Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there was nothing that could stop English-speaking imperialism from committing similar crimes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Similarly, both Britain and America were caught completely unprepared for regional Intifada in the Middle East and North Africa. Western estrangement has taken its toll. Western political leadership is totally detached from humanist thinking or judgments that involve ethics.
For America, Britain and the West to rescue themselves all they have to do is to revert to Western values of ethics and openness. They must drift away from Jerusalem and reinstate the spirit of Athens.
It is my hope that this book will throw some light on questions to do with Jewish-ness and Jewish ideology, identity and politics. Having thought and written about this topic for over a decade, and looking back over my work, I realise that it was actually the Jewish ‘anti-Zionists’ who taught me more about Zionism, Jewish nationalism and tribalism than any rabid Zionist or Israeli nationalist.
While both Zionism and Jewish socialism are full of inconsistencies, Zionism can be realised as an attempt to resolve the abnormality in the Jewish condition. The so-called Jewish progressive discourse, on the other hand, is an attempt to shove ideological inconsistencies and discrepancies (largely tribalism vs. universalism) under the carpet.
As much as this book explores different aspects of Jewish political neurosis, and may help to untangle the bond between Israel and Jews across the world, it fails to answer one question: what do modern emancipated Jews want? Considering the energy and resources that Jewish lobbies pour into political parties around the world, and the efforts undertaken to influence media and leadership, it is far from clear what the Lord Levys and the Haim Sabans are trying to achieve. They spend a lot of money but what are they trying to buy? What is Israel itself trying to achieve? The more influence Jewish and Israeli lobbies gain, the greater resentment Jews earn. Is it ‘security’ that they seek, as they say? I really do not think so.
One answer may be that Jews do not agree amongst themselves about what is right for the Jews. Back in 2003, Zionists believed, for instance, that sending the US and Britain to destroy Iraq was ‘good for the Jews’. Jewish anti-Zionists were convinced that opposing the same war ‘as Jews’ was the best thing Jews could do for themselves. The Jewish escapists were and are still convinced that turning a blind eye is the best thing for the Jews.
Whether Jews know or can agree on what is ‘good for the Jews’ is an open question, yet to identify politically as a Jew and to wonder what is ‘good for the Jews’ is the true essence of Jewish tribal thinking and the Third Category identity. This is where I began this book, and this, apparently, is where I end it.
I would love to end this book on a positive note, to suggest a practical solution. That it is not easy. Jewish cultural and ideological exceptionalism has left Jewish political discourse with no hope or future.
As a young Israeli I believed in the Zionist ethos, I regarded myself as an inherent part of the Jewish modern revival project. I saw myself as part of Jewish history, and Jewish history as an extension of myself. As a young Israeli growing up in the post-1967 era, I saw myself and the people around me as an evolving collective consciousness, fighting a revolutionary battle for historic justice.
It took a while before I realised that my historical revival project was in fact a chain of blind spots. It took me many years to understand that I myself was a black spot. I remember my high school class visit to Yad Vashem , the Israeli Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem located next to Deir Yassin , a Palestinian village that was wiped of its inhabitants in 1948. I was fourteen years old at the time. I asked the emotional tour guide if she could explain the fact that so many Europeans loathed the Jews so much and in so many places at once. I was thrown out of school for a week. It seems I didn’t learn the necessary lesson because when we studied the middle age blood libels, I again wondered out loud how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless. Once again I was sent home for a week. In my teens I spent most of my mornings at home rather than in the classroom.
As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. They were part of our lives. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. Yet I must mention that I can hardly recall a single Holocaust survivor who ever attempted to manipulate me emotionally. Recently I spoke to a Scottish friend who volunteered in a Kibbutz in the 1970s. That Kibbutz was known for its high percentage of Holocaust survivors. My Scottish friend pointed out to me that he really enjoyed his time there working and talking with those survivors. They were largely very quiet and polite, they never used their past as a claim for fame. It was the young Israelis who he couldn’t stand. My experience was very similar – as far as my personal experience is concerned, it is always the alleged sons, daughters and grandchildren of survivors who exploit the Holocaust as a political argument, or a claim for some form of exceptionalism.
The American historian Norman Finkelstein is correct when arguing that Israel transformed the Holocaust into a political tool after 1967, when it needed an ‘ethical’ excuse as a non-ethical occupier. I must admit that, even as a nationalist youngster, I never felt comfortable with the Holocaust. At the time I thought that Jews shouldn’t brag so much about being resented.
It was actually the internalisation of the meaning of the Holocaust that transformed me into a strong opponent of Israel and Jewish-ness. It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return. In 1984, while being a soldier, during that short visit to Anzar concentration camp in Lebanon, I realized that I was on the wrong side.
It has been pointed out to me that my critical take on Zionism can be also seen as a great Zionist achievement, for Zionism vowed to create a ‘free’, rational, liberal and open Jewish discourse. Indeed, like an Israeli, I do not hold back, I do not mince my words either. As if this is not enough, it is no secret that I look like an Israeli and sound like one. It may well be that these are necessary qualities needed to grasp the Israeli mind, politics, identity and culture. Amongst the most productive critical voices of Israel and Jewish-ness you will find Israelis and ex-Israelis such as Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir, Gideon Levi, Shimon Tzabar, Shlomo Sand, Avrum Burg, Amira Hess, Uri Avneri, Tali Fachima, Mordechi Vannunu, Nurit Peled and a few others. I guess that there must be something positive in the Zionist heritage if it has managed to bring forth so many critical voices. Israeli media constantly tries to engage me in debate. It would seem that there is still an element of openness within the Zionist discourse.
As a young secular Israeli Jew, I believed enthusiastically in the possibility of transformation of the Jewish character into a ‘civilised, authentic humanist collective’. I believed myself to be one. I then grasped, through a long and painful process that Israel wouldn’t bring about a humanist Jew. It was entangled in a colossal sin and it was far too arrogant to save itself from its doomed circumstances. I realised that if I was genuinely enthusiastic about the Goyim lifestyle, I had better just leave Israel behind, dwell amongst the Goyim and even try to become one myself. So I did. To date, I have never looked back with yearning. I even proudly own the few contradictions I have managed to retain.
I guess that leaving this book without a quest for peace and reconciliation would be a missed opportunity. Needless to say, I am not holding my breath for a solution from any ‘peace talks’.
Imagine an Israeli PM wakes up one sunny morning with the unusual determination to bring about true peace. In the wee small hours, wisdom embraces him or her. He or she realises that Israel is in fact Palestine: it is stretched over historic Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian people, their livelihood and their history. He or she grasps that the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land, and the rockets they shoot from time to time are nothing but love letters to their stolen villages, orchards, vineyards and fields. Our imaginary Israeli PM realises that the so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved in 25 minutes once both people decide to live together. Following the Israeli unilateral tradition, an immediate televised press conference is called on the same day at 14:00. Captivated by true righteousness, the PM announces to the world and his/her people ‘Israel realises its unique circumstances and its responsibility for world peace. Israel calls the Palestinian people to return to their homes. The Jewish state is to become a state of its citisens, where all people enjoy full equal rights’.
Though shocked by the sudden Israeli move, political analysts around the world would be quick to realise that, considering Israel is the representative of world Jewry, such a simple peaceful initiative won’t just resolve the conflict in the Middle East, it would also bring to an end two millennia of mutual suspicion and resentfulness between Christians and Jews. Some right-wing Israeli academics, ideologists and politicians join the revolutionary initiative and declare that such a heroic unilateral Israeli act could be the one and only total and comprehensive fulfilment of the Zionist dream, for not only have Jews returned to their alleged historical home, they also have managed, at last, to love their neighbours and be loved in return.
As much as such an idea is thrilling, we shouldn’t expect it to happen any time soon, for Israel is the Jewish state and Jewishness is an ethno-centric ideology driven by exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation.
For Israel and Israelis to become people like other people, all traces of Jewish ideological superiority must be eliminated first. For the Jewish state to lead a peace initiative, Israel must be de-Zionised – it should first stop being the Jewish State. Similarly, in order for an imaginary Israeli PM to bring peace about, he or she must be de-Zionised first.
As things stand, the Jewish State is categorically unable to lead the region into reconciliation. It lacks the necessary ingredients needed to think in terms of harmony and reconciliation.
The only people who can bring peace about are the Palestinians, because Palestine, against all odds and in spite of the endless suffering, humiliation and oppression, is still an ethically-driven ecumenical society.
As far as Jews are concerned, a few questions remain. Can the Jewish identity discourse be liberated from its self-imposed ideological and spiritual tyranny? Can Jewish politics drift away from supremacy? Can Jews save themselves? My answer is simple: for Jewish ideology to universalise itself and for Jews to move on and emancipate themselves, a vigorous and honest process of self-reflection must take place. Whether Jews can engage in such a critical endeavour is an open question. I don’t know the answer, I guess that some can, others can’t. I would hope, though, that this book may offer a fairly good start.
In particular I would like to express my gratitude to my mother Ariella who is not just intellectually inspiring but also one of my closest friends, to my wife Tali and my kids Mai and Yann who debated and challenged my thoughts throughout these years and yet supported me and my strange life-style all along. I would like to mention Mary Rizzo who was my dedicated editor for many years and contributed many great titles to my texts including the title of this book.
I would like to thank all the people who supported me, my writing and my enterprise all those years. When tsunamis of malicious slander were about to wash my shore, I came to know battalions of vibrant ethically driven individuals who stood by my side and paved the way for a journey that led eventually to the publication of this book.
I would like to thank all those journals, magazines, editors, academics, promoters, friends and activists who stood up firmly against all odds and kept publishing my writing, invited me to perform and debate my views. I would also like to express my gratitude to those who welcomed my enterprise and provided me with many inspiring insights and warm support: Gregory Mario Whitfield, Alan Hart, Paul de Rooij, Ramzy Baroud, Gill Kaffash, Ken O’keefe, Manuel Talens, Nahida Yassin, Roy Ratcliffe, Fausto Guidice, Kristoffer Larsson, Laura Susijn, Jeff Blankfort, Amelia Tucker, Sameh Habeed, Nadya Shah, Tim King, Louis Charalambous, Alexander Cockburn, Amos Zukerman, Anthony Lawson, Gordon Duff, Francis Clark Lowes, Chris Cook, David Alpin, Gabi Weber, Massoud Nayeri, Mamoon Alabbasi, James Petras, Glenn Bowman, Eddie Hick, Paul Eisen, Lauren Booth, William W. Cook, Paul Larudee, Mohamed El Dufani, Richard Falk, Janet Kobren, Mitch Albert, Ben Bastin, Jason Bosh, Jeff Salamt, June Terpstra, John Mearsheimer, Richard Sharma and many others. A special thanks to my friend and collaborator Sarah Gillespie who found herself discussing Jewish identity politics matters over thousands of miles on the way to concerts and recording studios.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without thanking from the bottom of my heart my half the dozen Jewish Marxist detractors who have been stalking me and my music career day and night for years, without whom I would never have grasped the real depth of tribal ferocity. It is these so called ‘anti Zionist’ Jewish ethnic activists who taught me more than any rabid Zionist about the true devastating practical meaning of Jewish identity politics.
1. Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky was the founder of Zionist revisionism, author, orator and soldier. Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s legacy is carried on today by Israel’s Herut party (merged with other right wing parties to form the Likud in 1973) and the Betar Zionist youth movement.
2. ‘The primacy of the ear’ may echo (for some) the Judaic Sh’ma Yisrael prayer: ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). Though Judaism allocates great importance to the act of ‘hearing’, it is crucial to make a clear distinction between my own call for a personal and critical judgment, as opposed to Judaic call for total obedience.
3. In spite of some disturbing Judaic thoughts that are explored in the Torah and especially in the Talmud, it is an accepted fact that the ultra-orthodox Torah Jews stand collectively against Zionism and in support of the Palestinians.
4. By Way of Deception, Victor Ostrovsky , St. Martin’s, 1990 pg 86-7 5. Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (born December 22, 1943) is a leading Neoconservative, a former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense. As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz was a major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy.
6. Rahm Israel Emanuel (born November 29, 1959), former White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama; served as Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998.
7. Michael Abraham Levy (born 11 July 1944) was the chief fundraiser for the UK Labour Party. A long-standing friend of former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, Lord Levy spent nine years from 1998 as Tony Blair’s special envoy to the Middle East.
8. David Aaronovitch (born 8 July 1954 ) is a British author, broadcaster, and journalist.
He is a regular columnist for The Times and the Jewish Chronicle. Aaronovitch was amongst the few advocates of the 2nd Iraq War within British Press.9. Ibid pg 87 10. Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954) was a USA former CIA and USA’s Navy employee who was convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987.
1 1 . http://www.washingtonreport.
org/backissues/0195/9501017.htm 12. ADL-The Anti-Defamation League is a Zionist organization based in the USA.
Describing itself as ‘the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency.’ 13. Bernard Lawrence Madoff (born April 29, 1938) is a former American stockbroker and formerly non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market. Madoff was sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in what has been described as the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.
14. ‘Organism’ can be described as a whole hierarchical assemblage of systems made of collections of organs. While the organism functions as a whole, the particular organ fulfills an elementary function without being aware of its specific role within the entire system.
15. Appeared in the amended text (16/41992) that followed the embarrassing earlier New York Times leak.
18. On June 3 1997 the PNAC released its ‘Statement of Principles’, a list of ideas that set the USA as a global police force, the guardian of ‘morality’, the disseminator of ‘democracy’ and a defender of Jewish state and its interests: we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and] we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
20. Jacob Schiff (the head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company) is credited with giving twenty million dollars to the Bolshevik revolution. A year after his death the Bolsheviks deposited over six hundred million rubles in Schiff’s banking firm Kuhn, Loeb. (New York Journal American 1949. February 3.) One may mistakenly assume that the shift of world Jewry lobbying from Germany to America is the product of Hitler’s rise. In fact the Israeli author Amos Elon (The Pity of it All) provides interesting historical insight into the subject.
Seemingly, upon the eve of the first war, some very powerful Jewish German lobbies were operating in America. Apparently, prominent German American Jews protested against America joining England and France. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22 1914, Jacob H Schiff, head of Khun, Loeb (at the time the second largest private bank in the USA), charged the British and French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade (Elon, pg. 253). East European Jews who emigrated to the USA, evading the anti-Semitic Czarist Russia, regarded the German army as a liberator. American Jewry was mainly pro- German. The British Government took these developments seriously. The British Ambassador to the United States suspected a Jewish conspiracy in America. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was largely an attempt to divert the anti-English feelings amongst World Jewry. This strategy was successful at least in the short-term. Following the declaration, world Jewry, both Zionists and non-Zionists, largely embraced the side of the Allies.
21. Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan, Consumer Finance at the Federal Reserve System’s Fourth Annual Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C.
22. Becoming an indistinguishable part of a group or community
23. Becoming accepted within a larger group or community
25. The exposure of Jews in influential positions is done in various ways. Jewish media outlets often expose the Jewish roots of leading key players in politics, business and media. For instance the Jewish Chronicle in the UK names Jews in politics and business. The Jewish Virtual Library proudly names the Jews in different American administrations (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/USIsrael/ bushjews.html). And if anyone wants to verify the Jewish identity of a celebrity, there is the website http://www. jewornotjew.com.
26. Max Simon Nordau (July 29, 1849 – January 23, 1923) was a Zionist leader, physician, author, and social critic. Nordau was a co-founder of the World Zionist Organization together with Theodor Herzl.
27. Max Nordau, address at the first Zionist Congress, Basle, 1897
28. Blatant Lesbianism, 1978 Sydney Magazine. P.10-13
29. Guardian, 13 May 2000.
30. ‘Women, Wimmin, Womyn, Womin, Whippets – On Lesbian Separatism’, Julie M c C r o s s i n , http://www.takver.com/history /womyn.htm.
31. In his book, Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews , Naeim Giladi discusses the crimes committed by Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor from Iraq in the early 1950s.
Giladi tells a story of a Zionist attempt to hurt Iraqi Jews in order to disseminate the Zionist message . ‘In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel.’ (http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/ameu_iraqjews.
32. Israelis are fascinated by the 1967 images of IDF paratroopers, the ultimate Sabras, sobbing in proximity to the wailing wall once they completed the invasion of Jerusalem old city. The images symbolically juxtapose the 1967 heroic military affair with the deeply emotional, humane characteristic of the Sabra .
33. Tzitzit – specially knotted ritual fringes worn by observant Jewish males. Tzitzit are attached to the four corners of the Tallit (prayer shawl) 34. The negation of the Diaspora is a central assumption in earlier Zionist trends. It is there to reject the feasibility of Jewish emancipation, integration and assimilation in the Diaspora.
35. Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius pg Xl, Oxford University Press.
41. Franz Rosenzweig – (December 25, 1886-December 10, 1929) was a German- Jewish theologian and philosopher
42. Hermann Cohen – (4 July 1842-4 April 1918) was a German-Jewish philosopher.
Cohen is regarded by some as the most prominent 19th century Jewish philosopher.
43. Gershom Scholem (December 5, 1897-February 21, 1982), was a German-born Jewish philosopher and historian. Scholem is widely regarded as the founder of the modern, academic study of Kabbalah and Jewish Mysticism.
44. Gefilte fish – a Jewish Ashkenazi fish dish. Typically eaten on Sabbath and religious holidays.
45. Women Against Fundamentalism and the Jewish community Journal no.4 1992/1993.pp.3-5
46. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism is a non-reformist religion. In Judaism there is no room for even minor modifications. Judaism is a sealed list of 613 commandments ( Mitzvas ) that must be followed strictly. From a Judaic (i.e. religious) point of view, to depart from Judaism is, in practice, to form a new Church. If Julia was slightly more knowledgeable about Judaism she could articulate her point in a scholarly manner, saying: ‘While Judaism remains unchanged, you can still be Jewish without being a religious Jew.’ Judaism and Jewish-ness are different categories. While Judaism is an unchanged religious core, Jewishness is a dynamic category in a continuous flux.
Indeed, this is the case with Zionism. Zionism is a dynamic continuation of Jewish-ness: it is racist, exclusive, supremacist and self-centred, yet it is not Judaic. It has very little to do with Judaism. It may be messianic in a territorial sense, yet it lacks the Judaic divinity. In fact, in this sense, Zionism opposes Judaism.
47. Alan Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. Dershowitz is an outspoken supporter of Israel. In 2003 he published The Case for Israel, an advocacy of the Zionist cause and Israeli policies. In March 2006, Mearsheimer and Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (The London Review of Books) referred to Dershowitz specifically as an ‘apologist’ for the Israel lobby.
48. Max Nordau, speech at the First Zionist Congress, Basel, Switzerland, 29 August 1897. See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/%5Baccessed 15/06/ 2010].
49. Avnery, Uri, ‘I’m a Leftist, but …’, Counterpunch , 8 September 2006; see http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09082006.html
51. A Tel Aviv University pole that took place at the time of the Israeli military campaign in Gaza (2008-2009) revealed that IDF’s operation against Hamas in Gaza enjoyed the overwhelming support of Israeli Jews, despite the loss of civilian life. A whopping 94% of the Israeli Jewish population supported or strongly supported the operation, while 92% thought it beneficial to Israel’s security. The poll found that 92% of Israeli Jews thought the air force’s attacks in Gaza justified, despite the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip and the damage they cause to infrastructure.
53. Weininger, Otto, Sex and Character , New York: Howard Fertig, 2003, p. 29.
54. Ibid, p. 57.
55. Ibid, p. 110.
56. Ibid, Preface, p. I.
57. Ibid, p. 109.
58. Ibid, p. 304.
59. Ibid, p. 305.
60. Marx, Karl, ‘On the Jewish Question’ ( ‘Zur Judenfrage’ ), first published in February 1844 in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher ; see translation at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ works/1844/jewish-question/
61. Weininger, Otto, Sex and Character , New York: Howard Fertig, 2003
62. Shavit, Ari, ‘Leaving the Zionist Ghetto’, interview with Avraham Burg, Ha’aretz , 25 July 2007; accessed 15/06/2010 at http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/06/completeabraham- burg-interview-leaving.html
63. Aliyah is the Hebrew word describing the immigration of Jews to Eretz Yisrael . It is a basic tenet of Zionist ideology. Aliyah means ‘ascent’. The opposite action i.e. emigration of Jews from Israel, is referred to as yerida (descent).
64. Speech on the Place of the Bund in the R.S.D.L.P, V. I. Lenin, July 17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903
69. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest . What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering .
What is his worldly God? Money . Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.’ Karl Marx On The Jewish Question , 1844
70. Defined earlier on as a second category.
71. Falls into the third category.
72. This is to suggest that the liberation from despots and oppressive systems, must be always primarily grounded on ethical foundation.
73. Right-wing Israeli journalist Yair Sheleg in Ha’aretz , 2006 see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/757767.html
74. Rappaport, Meron, ‘IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon’, Ha’aretz , 12 September 2006; see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761781.html
75. On 31 May 2010, in international waters, Israeli Navy seals raided a humanitarian aid flotilla of six ships. The flotilla carried humanitarian aid and construction materials. It aimed to break the Israeli siege on Gaza. At dawn, hundreds of Israeli elite Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from speedboats and helicopters, using excessive power. On the Turkish MV Mavi Marmara, the Israelis met some resistance. The Israelis were quick to use live ammunition. Consequently, nine Turkish peace activists were killed by the Israeli soldiers, some amongst them were executed by Israeli soldiers. The Israeli raid led to widespread international condemnation.
76. The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand, Verso 2009, pg 1.
77. Ilani, Ofri, ‘Shattering a “National Mythology”’, interview with Shlomo Sand, Ha’aretz , 21 March 2008; see http://www.haaretz.com/general/shattering-anational- mythology-1.242015
78. The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand, Verso 2009, pg 21
79. The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand, Verso 2009, pg 66
80. Ilani, Ofri, ‘Shattering a “National Mythology”’, interview with Shlomo Sand, Ha’aretz , 21 March 2008; see http://www.
81. Ilani, Ofri, ‘Shattering a “National Mythology”’, interview with Shlomo Sand, Ha’aretz , 21 March 2008; see http://www.
84. Ilani, ‘Shattering a “National Mythology”‘
85. Berbers are the indigenous peoples of North Africa west of the Nile Valley
89. AIPAC – The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the leading Israeli lobbying group in the USA. It advocates pro- Israel policies within American politics and other influential institutions.
The New York Times described AIPAC as ‘the most important organisation affecting America’s relationship with Israel.’ It is no doubt one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC, and its critics have stated it acts as an agent of the Israeli government, with a ‘stranglehold’ on the United States Congress.
Along its history AIPAC has been caught in a few espionage affairs. In 2005, a Pentagon analyst pleaded guilty to charges of passing US government secrets to two AIPAC staffers in what is known as the AIPAC espionage scandal.
In 1984 the FBI investigated after Israeli Minister of Economics Dan Halpern passed stolen classified US government documents to AIPAC, outlining trade secrets of major US industries lobbying against the US-Israel Free Trade Area.
92. 30. Ellis, Marc H., Beyond Innocence and Redemption: Confronting The Holocaust and Israeli Power : Creating a Moral Future for the Jewish People , San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1990, p. ???
93. Bowman, Glenn, ‘Migrant Labour: Constructing Homeland in the Exilic Imagination’, Anthropological Theory II:4, December 2002, pp. 447–68.
94. Lemche, Niels Peter, The Canaanites and Their Land, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
96. Medoff, Rafael, ‘A Purim Lesson: Lobbying Against Genocide, Then and Now’; s e e http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles /2004-03-purim.php
101. Prinz, Joachim, Zionism under the Nazi Government , Young Zionist (London, November 1937), p.18; cited in Brenner, Lenni, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators , Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1983; see http://www.marxists.de/ middleast/brenner /ch05.htm
102. Cited in Brenner, ibid .
103. Brenner, ibid .
104. Strauss, Herbert (ed.), Gegenwart Im Ruckblick (Heidelberg, 1970), p.231; cited at http://www.marxists.de/middleast /brenner/ch03.htm#n1
105. Brenner, Lenni, interview with Joachim Prinz, 8 February 1981; see http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php /clip.php ?cid=512
106. Littlewood, Stuart, ‘Jews are eight times over-represented in UK parliament’, 21 May 2010; see http://www.redress.cc/ global /slittlewood20100521
107. Bruck, Connie, ‘The Influencer’, The New Yorker , 10 May 2010.
109. http://www.thejc.com/news/uknews/ 26593/war-crimes-will-government-everact 110. Zionism was, in fact, the only Jewish secular ideology to come close to something that resembles an autonomous and authentic body of Jewish secular moral thinking. As discussed before, Zionism promised to bring about a civilized and ethical Jew.