Racist Jews Defeated By An Honest Jew

From http://www.palestinianmothers.com/profiles/blogs/exposing-two-notorious The boy done good.

Racist Jews Defeated By An Honest Jew - Gilad Atzmon
QUOTE
By Gilad Atzmon
11 April 2009
Israeli-born jazz musician and writer Gilad Atzmon describes how, at a debate on anti-Semitism held at Oxford University, he demolished two of Britain’s most notorious pro-war and pro-Israel lobbyists, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. [ Both from the Guardian, England's leading communist subversive mouth piece. - Editor ]

On 1 April 2009, I participated in a panel that could have been a breakthrough debate on issues having to do with “Anti-Semitism”. The event was part of the Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival and it took place at Oxford University. The discussion was moderated by the legendary BBC reporter, Martin Bell. On the panel we had Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch. They were there to elaborate on the case of “the new anti-Semitism”. Interestingly enough, Aaronovitch and Cohen were prominent advocates of the illegal war on Iraq through the British press. They are also notoriously famous for their Islamophobic ranting, and, as if this were not enough, they were also caught supporting the latest deadly Israeli campaign in Gaza. I was at the panel to argue that anti-Semitism is a spin, a myth. I was there to deliver a very simple message: there is no such thing as anti-Semitism.

I was looking forward to the event. I suspected that it might not be easy confronting Britain’s loudest Zionist-conservative (Ziocon) lobbyists [ perhaps better known as Neoconservatives ] on my own. In fact, I was wrong. It was a piece of cake. It was almost an effortless task to expose and demolish the lame Zionist argument, mainly because there is no such argument. Zionism is not a dialogical narrative; rather, it is a pragmatic and ruthless practice that seeks control of land and discourse.

In contrast to Aaronovitch and Cohen, I believe in dialogue and I support every form of well-argued debate. In fact, I would debate with anyone, whether it is a Nazi or a Zionist, whether it is a white supremacist or a Judaeocentric Islamophobic agitator. In my world, platform is granted to anyone who is willing to hold a well-mannered conversation. However, on 1 April both Aaronovitch and Cohen didn’t want to debate or to argue. They believed that finishing me off would serve their cause. Funnily enough, not only did they fail, but they ended up on the defensive, running out of sympathy and begging for the audience to stop applauding me.

Sadly, the panel was not very effective in elaborating on the given topic (“Anti-Semitism – alive and well in Europe?”). David Aaronovitch, who happened to be the first to talk, insisted that, rather than discuss the subject, he would score more points by citing the best of my published jewels. He was determined to convince the audience that I was the lowest of the low and that I should have never been invited to such a prestigious platform. This is not a joke. Aaronovitch, who is notoriously famous for lobbying for a war that that has left (so far) 1.5 million civilians dead, a person who is engaged in spreading vile anti-left and Zionist Islamophobic propaganda, is convinced that he is entitled to preach to the public on who should and who should not participate in the discourse. Foolishly, Aaronovitch anticipated that, once he read out my words, a gasp of resentment towards me would spread in the marquee. The deluded man must have invested an enormous amount of energy gathering these endless quotes. He must have read each of my papers, picking out what he interpreted, in his deluded Zionist world-view, as “outrageous thoughts”. For my part, I was rather thrilled and amused. It doesn’t happen that often that people read my works with such enthusiasm on such a prestigious platform. Neither me nor my most devoted readers could have done a better job presenting my ideas.

Sadly for Aaronovitch, his plan didn’t work out. There was not a single noticeable reaction in the room. There was not a single gasp of resentment. And yet, the truth must be said, Aaronovitch is a very talented, melodramatic performer. He brilliantly over-dramatized my ideas, he beautifully stressed the different variations of the “J” word. He would then slow down, stare at me with exaggerated contempt and giggle, expecting the crowd to join him. But they didn’t.

For reasons known only to themselves, Aaronovitch and Cohen failed to realize that Oxford University was not exactly a Yeshiva. It was not an occupied territory either. It wasn’t down to them or the Israeli Hasbara Committee to decide who was entitled to engage in a public debate. If anything, the two warmongers should have had the minimum intellectual integrity to ban themselves from the public eye for advocating a war that has led to a genocide. The two warmongers should have had enough honesty to realize that, if there is anti-Semitism, as they say, they must be the root cause for such a phenomenon.

Aaronovitch failed to grasp that people who attend literary events are largely curious and open minded; they are far more interested in listening to enlightening ideas rather than to be indoctrinated or patronized by a right-wing Zionist agitator.

Seemingly, Aaronovitch failed to realize that people out there do read the news from time to time. They read about Charles Freeman and the Jewish lobby, they read about the swindler Bernard Madoff, Lord Michael “Cashpoint” Levy, proxy donor David Abrahams, Labour Friends of Israel,  Alan Greenspan and the credit crunch. People out there do realize that more than just a few prominent Zionist Jews are caught in the eye of the current storms (Iraq, finance, Gaza). Aaronovitch, who by his own admission, has been monitoring my writing for years, should have known that NO ONE out of the Jewish ghetto is offended by my observations about excessive Jewish lobbying and Zionist power. If anything, my stand against tribal politics makes me more and more popular within far bigger circles.

Needless to say, I myself have never sought this kind of fame. I am a jazz musician, I have a very rewarding musical career. When it comes to my intervention on Jewish identity, I write what I regard to be the truth, realizing that there maybe more than one truth. I publish my thoughts in the full knowledge that my truth today may be shaken tomorrow. My task is very simple. I try to be coherent, to make sure that at least I can follow my own threads of thought. I am aware of the fact that my writing may demolish some – in fact, more than once I surprised even myself by my own ideas. Unlike Cohen and Aaronovitch, for me this has never been a political battle, it has never been about power or about scoring points. It was always about ethics and intellectual integrity. Seemingly, ethics and intellectual honesty are exactly what the Ziocons à la Aaronovitch/Cohen lack. It is evidently the shortage of ethical commitment and intellectual integrity that pushes Cohen and Aaronovitch back to where they belong: the insular, segregated kosher cyber-ghetto.

Notably, both Aaronovitch and Cohen are famous for their incredibly deceiving call to “liberate the Iraqi people”. The two Jewish Chronicle writers claimed to know what the Iraqi people “desired”. They were obviously wrong and the total Western defeat in Iraq proves it beyond doubt. It is understandable and to be expected that two Zionist Londoners would fail to grasp the true will of the Iraqi people. Yet, one would expect Aaronovitch and Cohen to know “something” about the middle class crowd in Oxford. At the end of the day, Aaronovitch and Cohen were raised in the UK and educated at British universities. In spite of their promoting of Zionist propaganda in the British media, they are still British; they should have known better. I would have also expected that, after 200 years of “Jewish assimilation”, the tribal activists would learn something about their neighbours’ appetite. Apparently, Aaronovitch and Cohen didn’t. The enthusiastic reception of my intervention drove Aaronovitch into a vile tantrum. “Shame on you,” he shouted at the applauding Oxford crowd. Before too long, he was caught on tape blaming his audience for being anti-Semitic. Clearly, on the recording, some members of the audience are heard giggling at the embarrassing outburst of a neurotic, decaying neo-conservative.

I do realize that my performance in Oxford was actually very symbolic in its resemblance to the success of the Iraqi resistance: despite my rather broken English, my faulty grammar and my limited resources, and notwithstanding being sluggish and slightly messy, the truth was on my side – or I should say, the truth is in our side. As far as public debate is concerned, Jewish tribalism, Zionism and neo-con precepts are indefensible. We will win in every intellectual battle against these warmongers just because we are ethical, genuine and coherent. All we have to do is to survive their endless spin and slander.

Once Aaronovitch ended citing my “pearls”, Nick Cohen took the platform. He spoke about the Elders of Zion. Like Aaronovitch, he failed to address the subject. It is clear that Zionist lobbyists really believe that focusing on a 19th century text would distract attention from the current powerful elders who lobby for more and more global conflicts and biblical plunder. Cohen, I guess, must be convinced that, as long as The Protocols [of the Learned Elders of Zion] are alive in our thoughts, he might be able to advocate wars without us noticing. He must be a fool. We do see him, we see it all and we do not like what we see.

“I refuse to accept the premise of the debate,” I told the people in Oxford. Anti-Semitism is a misleading notion. It is there to give the impression that opposition to Jewish politics is racially motivated. However, Jews are not a race nor are they in any proximity of any recognized racial continuum. Since Jews are not a race (but can be very racist), opposition to what some of them advocate, at least currently, is not racially orientated or motivated at all.

Anti-Semitism is nothing but spin, it is there to silence criticism of Israel, Jewish nationalism, Jewish politics and Jewish lobbies around the world. Rather than talking about anti-Semitism, we had better talk about the rise of anti-Jewish feelings.

I am more than willing to admit that there is indeed more than one piece of evidence of growing resentment towards Jewishness, and I am referring here to Jewish ideology and Jewish politics. Yet, in a liberal society, political and ideological criticism is supposed to be a fully legitimate endeavour. As it happens, there is a growing rage against Jewish politics and national politics in particular, but this shouldn’t take us by surprise, considering the crimes that are committed locally and globally by Zionists and neo-cons, whether it is Ehud Olmert's genocidal practice in Palestine or the Aaronovitch/Cohen lobbying for a war against Israel’s enemies.

I am also willing to admit that some innocent ethnic Jews are caught in the middle of all this. This is indeed a serious problem and I do not have a simple answer to offer. Yet, I would mention that my wife, my kids and a few of my band members who happen to be of Jewish origin have never come across any form of anti-Semitic abuse. If we have ever noticed any abuse, it was somehow always Jewish violence against us in the form of death threats, smears, slander and spin.

In the light of this very simple observation, two questions must be asked.
First, how is it that the campaigners against anti Semitism, such as Aaronovitch and Cohen, happen to be also muddled up with some ludicrous Islamophobic statements?

The answer is very simple. Those who preach to us about anti-Semitism are neither humanists nor universalists. They are simply banal tribal activists that are committed to the interests of their ethnic group and that group alone. The few gentiles who advocate this immoral discourse do it for political reasons. Within the Jewish terminology, they are called the “Sabbath Goy”. They are there to work for the Jews and they are fully rewarded accordingly [ e.g. Blair ] .

Second, we have good reason to believe that Aaronovitch and Cohen know very well that Jews are not descendants of people of Semitic origin and do not form a racial continuum. Why then do they try to pretend that the negation towards Jews is racially motivated?

Again the answer is rather obvious. The Jewish ethnic campaigner will spin and cheat and spread lies because Jewish ideology (right, left and centre) cannot be defended or argued in rational or ethical terms. All Jewish national political discourses are exclusivist, supremacist and racially orientated. (Although Jews are far from being a race, every form of Jewish politics is categorically racist to the bone. It is always about different formations of a “Jews only” club.)

To a certain extent, I was very lucky to share a platform with Aaronovitch and Cohen for the simple reason that they are the ultimate embodiment of tribal activism and war lobbying in this country. Aaronovitch and Cohen, among a few other Zio-con protagonists, are the root cause of resentment towards Jewish political lobbying. It was almost entertaining to hear the Jewish Chronicle writer Aaronovitch denying being a Jew, presenting the lame and pathetic argument that he had been in a synagogue just “three times in my entire life”. Aaronovitch obviously thought that he would get away with this new spin. He obviously knows that Jews do not have to believe in God, they do not have to go to synagogues. He must know also that even one visit to a synagogue is probably far more than the vast majority of humanity has ever experienced. What makes Aaronovitch into a Jewish tribal campaigner is, for instance, the fact that he is listed on the Israel Hasbara Committee as one of their authors. The Israel Hasbara Committee, which lists Aaronovitch as one of its authors declares that its aim is: "To promote understanding of Judaism and Israel.”

Do you know of any goy who is affiliated with the “promotion” of Judaism AND Israel? Oh yes, Aaronovitch, has one more spinning line he has yet to explore. He may suggest to us that he is actually a “Christian Zionist”.

What makes Aaronovitch into a Jew has nothing to do with his religious affiliation or belief. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of his parents. It has nothing to do with the shape of his nose or the tip of his knob. What makes Aaronovitch into a Jew and a Zionist one in particular is his affiliation with the most rabid, notorious, nationalist Jewish political school. What made Aaronovitch so spiteful and despised in Oxford had nothing to do with his father’s origin. It is actually his Zionist politics and Zionized tactics, it is his commitment to Israeli propaganda, it is the fact that he lobbied for a war that made us all into war criminals, a war that has led to the genocide of 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians.

Aaronovitch and Cohen may have learned a lesson in Oxford. Aaronovitch pledged never to see me again. Listening to the audio recording of the event, and especially to his tantrum, he has a very good reason not to. The contemptible Zio-con was exposed. However, in the light of his being listed as an Israeli “propaganda author”, and bearing in mind his being a lobbyist for an illegal war, Aaronovitch is not exactly a Western liberal humanist. Seemingly, he is more of an Israeli patriot than a British one. This is something that his readers in The Times must keep in mind when Aaronovitch attempts to drag this country into another devastating global conflict.
UNQUOTE

 

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP Key.  Home Page