To Call A Spade A Spade

8/7/2019 To Call A Spade A Spade

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-call-a-spade-a-spade 1/24

To Call A Spade A Spade [Silvia Cattori]

Silvia Cattori: As a jazz musician, what brought you to use your

pen as a weapon [1] against the country where you were born andagainst your people?

Gilad Atzmon: For many years my music and writings

were not integrated at all. I became a musician when I wasseventeen and I took it up as a profession when I was

twenty four. Though I was not involved with, or interested

in politics when I lived in Israel, I was very much against

Israel’s imperial wars. I identified somehow with the left,

but later, when I started to grasp what the Israeli left was all

about, I could not find myself in agreement with anything itclaimed to believe in, and that is when I realised the crime

that was taking place in Palestine.

For me the Oslo Accord was the end of it because I realised

that Israel was not aiming towards reconciliation, or even

integration in the region, and that it completely dismissedthe Palestinian cause. I understood then that I had to leave



Israel. It wasn’t even a political decision I just didn’t want

to be part of the Israeli crime anymore. In 1994 I moved to

the UK and I studied philosophy.

In 2001, at the time of the second Intifada, I began to

understand that Israel was the ultimate aggressor and was

also the biggest threat to world peace. I realised the extent of

the involvement and the role of world Jewry as I analysed

the relationships between Israel and the Jewish State,

between Israel and the Jewish people around the world, andbetween Jews and Jewishness.

I then realised that the Jewish “left” was not very different at

all from the Israeli “left”. I should make it clear here that I

differentiate between “Left ideology” a concept that is

inspired by universal ethics and a genuine vision of equality

– and the “Jewish Left”, a tendency or grouping that is there

solely to maintain tribal interests that have very little, if

anything, to do with universalism, tolerance and equality.

Silvia Cattori: Would you argue that there is a discrepancy

between Jews and left?

Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. I should explain here that I never

talk about Jews as a people. I differentiate between Jews (the

people) Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the culture).

In my work, I am only elaborating on the third category, i.e.

Jewishness. Also it should be understood that I differentiate

between the tribal “Jewish Left”, and Leftists who simplyhappen to be Jewish. Indeed, I would be the first to admit



that there are many great leftists and humanists who

happen to be of Jewish origin. However those Jews who

operate under a “Jewish banner” seem to me to be Zionist fig

leafs: they are solely there to convey an image of “Jewishpluralism”. In fact, when I grasped the full role of the “Jewish

left” I realised that I may end up fighting alone against the

strongest power around.

Silvia Cattori: Do you fight alone?

Gilad Atzmon: More or less alone. I like to fight alone; I

take responsibility. Along the years, there have been a lot

attempts to destroy the few of us who have stood up against

Jewish power. I found myself in trouble for supporting

people like Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen, for standing up for

their right to think freely and to express their opinions and

ideas openly. I remember one of those infamous “Jewish

Left” activists telling me, “listen Gilad, once you shun Shamir

we will let you be”. My answer was simple: I was not about to

bargain with intellectual integrity. For me, freedom of

speech is an iron rule I would never silence anyone.

Within the liberation movement and the solidaritymovement, I do not actually believe that we have any

intellectuals. And why we do not have intellectuals?

Because in the name of “Political Correctness”, we have

managed to destroy every single English speaking creative

mind within our movement.



What we see here may be an endemic problem with “the

Left”. To speak in broad (or rather Germanic philosophical)

terms, “the Left” is “forgetful of Being” Instead of

understanding what Being in the world is all about, it triesto suggest to us what being in the world ought to be. “The

Left” has adopted a preaching mode that has led to a severe

form of alienation, and this is probably why “the Left” has

failed to come to terms with, fully understand, and grasp

the significance and power of Islam. And this is why “the

Left” is totally irrelevant to the current revolution in theMiddle East. As we know by now, “the Left’s’ tolerance”,

somehow evaporates when it comes to Islam and Muslims. I

find it very problematic.

Silvia Cattori: Can you explain why the Left is irrelevant?

Gilad Atzmon: Let us look at the current events in the Arab

and Muslim world: where is “the Left”? All those years they

were trying to tell us, the “public will rise”, but where is the

left now? Is it in Egypt? Is it in Libya or Bahrain? We hear

about the Muslim Brotherhood, the middle class, the young

Arabs and Muslims – indeed, we are hearing about

anything but “the Left”. Did you see any interesting Left

wing analysis of the regional emerging Intifada? Not really.

Recently, I was searching for an analysis of the Egyptian

uprising in a famous Socialist paper. I found one article I

then realised that the words “Islam” and “Muslim” did not

appear in the article even once, yet the word “class”

appeared no less than nineteen times. What we see here



then, is actually an example of the ultimate form of

detachment from humanity, humanism and the human

condition.

But I take it further: where is ‘the Left’ in Europe? Where is

“the Left” in America? Why can’t they stand up for the

Muslims? Why can’t they bond with, or make allies with

millions of Muslim immigrants, people who also happen to

be amongst the new European working class? I will mention

here what I consider to be a most crucial insight: It is an ideaI borrowed from the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

Lacan contends that love can be realised as making love to

oneself via the other. The “Left solidarity” with Palestine in

my opinion can be similarly grasped as making love to

ourselves at the expense of the Palestinians. We do not want

them to be Muslims. We tell them to be democratic aslong as they don’t vote Hamas. We tell them to be

progressive, “like us”. I just can’t make up my mind whether

such an attitude is rude, or simply pathetic.

Recently I came across a critical Trotsky-ite take on my

work. The argument against me was as follows: “Gilad is

wrong because he manages to explain Zionism without

colonialism; he explains the holocaust without fascism. He even

explains the recession, the global economic disaster, without

capitalism.”

I couldn’t agree more. We do not need “working class politics”

anymore. The old 19Th century clichés can be dropped and the sooner the better. In order to explain why our world



is falling apart, we just have to be brave enough to say what

we think, to admit what we see, to call a spade a spade.

Actually, I would love to see “the Left” resurrecting itself.Yet, for that to happen, it must first remind itself what

equality and tolerance really mean, because for “the Left” to

be meaningful again, it must first grasp the true meaning of

“love your neighbour.”

Silvia Cattori: When we listen to your political comments we

forget that you are primarily a musician.

Gilad Atzmon: The truth of the matter is that I am not

actually interested in politics I am not a member of any

party and I do not care about, or seek any political power. I

am not interested in the binary opposition between “left”

and “right,” and I do not care about the banal dichotomybetween “progressive” and “reactionary”. And let’s face it

from a Marxist point of view I am associated with the most

reactionary forces: I support Muslim Brotherhood,

Hezbollah, and I support Hamas. What do you want more

than that! I am the ultimate reactionary being and I am

delighted and proud about it all.

Silvia Cattori: You are really a free spirit.

Gilad Atzmon: That is because I am not political. I am an

artist and a musician; it is very simple.



Silvia Cattori: We can hardly imagine what would you be if you

had stayed in Israel?

Gilad Atzmon: It would be impossible to imagine.

Silvia Cattori: Are you still going to Israel?

Gilad Atzmon: Never. I will visit the Holly Land when it is

Palestine.

Silvia Cattori: Are you an exception among Israelis?

Gilad Atzmon: It is very interesting; when it comes to the

“Jewish left” abroad, I know very few Jews whom I can trust

on that level of commitment. They always go along with

you, but then as soon as you question the tribal bond and

their own role within the “Jewish universe” you will bestabbed in the back. Very rarely does one come across

courageous Jews who are willing to engage in deep self-

reflection: I refer here to people like Paul Eisen, Jeff

Blankfort, Norman Finkelstein, Hajo Meyer and Evelyn

Hecht Galinsky. In Israel however, it is different. You have

quite a few people who are actually brave beyond belief.They are really putting their life on the line. These are the

people who send us information about the army, about

military secrets, about war crimes and names of war

criminals. So there are quite a few Israelis who are doing

incredible work.



Silvia Cattori: Is writing on political matters and composing

music a way for you to contribute to a better world and to beauty?

Is one inseparable from the other?

Gilad Atzmon: At the moment I am trying to establish a

continuum between my music and my writing. I believe

that unlike our politicians whether they are right wing

politicians, conservative politicians, left politicians, all of

whom are seeking power artists are searching for beauty.

And I believe it is beauty that can unite people.

I will tell you something that I really plan to write about.

For many years our so-called “political analysts” have been

talking about Israel being a “settler state” and Zionism being

a “colonial project”. But what kind of colonialism is it? Is it an

accurate comparison?

For if Israel is a “settler state” – then what exactly is its

“motherland”? In British and French colonial eras, the settler

states maintained a very apparent tie with their

“motherland”. In some cases in history the settler state broke

from its motherland. Such an event is a rather noticeable

one, and the Boston Tea Party is a good example of that. But,as far as we are aware, there is no “Jewish motherland” that is

intrinsically linked to the alleged “Jewish settler state”.

The “Jewish people” are largely associated with the “Jewish

state”, and yet the “Jewish people” is not exactly a “material”

autonomous sovereign entity. Moreover, native Hebraic



Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to

any motherland except their own state.

Silvia Cattori: However, for some of the strongest advocates of the Palestinian rights, such as Ilan Pappe, Israel is a colonial

State. They put forward this argument to challenge Israeli

policies.

Gilad Atzmon: I am afraid that most activists and

academics cannot tell the entire truth on this sensitive

matter. Maybe no one can survive telling the truth. Indeed,

we are daily terrorised by different measures from the

thought police. I am convinced that most of the scholars

who insist upon calling Israel a “settler state” are fully aware

of the problems entangled with the “colonial paradigm”. They

must be aware of the uniqueness of the Zionist project. It is

indeed true that Zionism manifests some symptoms that are

synonymous with colonialism however that is not

enough: Zionism is inherently a racially oriented

“homecoming” project driven by spiritual enthusiasms that

are actually phantasmic. It intrinsically lacks many of the

“necessary” elements that we understand as comprising

colonialism, and cannot be defined in solely materialist

terms.

It seems to me that here, we come across a crucial problem

of understanding and analysis within our movement, and

within Western intellectual discourse in general. Our

academics are suppressed, and scholarship is silenced, forwithin the tyranny of political correctness, our academics



are forced to primarily consider the boundaries of the

discourse they first examine carefully what they are

allowed to say – and then they fill in the empty spaces,

formulating theories or narratives.

This pattern is unfortunately common. Yet, such an

approach and method is foreign to my understanding of

truth-seeking and true scholarship.

It is crucial to mention at this point that I do not claim to

know the truth. I just say what I believe to be the truth. If I

am wrong, I welcome people to point it out to me.

It appears to me that “the Left” mislead us and itself by

depicting Zionism solely as a colonial project. The “Left”

likes the colonial paradigm because it locates Zionism nicely

within their ideology. It also leads us to believe that thecolonial/post-colonial political model provides some

answers and even operative solutions; following the

colonial template, we first equate Israel with South Africa,

and then we implement a counter-colonial strategy, such as

the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions).

Yet, whilst I fully support all of those actions, they seem to

be in some regards, not entirely effective at all. The BDS has

not in fact, led to any metamorphic change within Israeli

society. If anything, it has led to further intensified

radicalisation within the right in Israel. Why has the BDS

not worked yet? The answer is simple: It is because Israel isnot at all entirely a colonial entity - as we historically



understand that term - and it needs to be understood that its

power and ties with the West are maintained by the

strongest lobbies around the world.

So, if the Left wants to stop Israel for real, then it must

openly question the notion of Jewish Power and its role

within Western politics and media. But can the Left do it? I

am not so sure.

Let us return now to further comparison of Israel with the

colonial model Israel is also markedly different, for

example, from earlier colonial states such as South Africa,

because Israel implements genocidal tactics. South Africa

was indeed brutal but it stopped short of throwing white

phosphorous on its indigenous population. South Africa

was a settler state, and was exploiting its indigenous

population: but it wanted to keep them alive and oppressed.

The Jewish state, on the other hand would much prefer to

wake up one morning to find out that all the Palestinians

had disappeared, because Israel is driven by a Talmudic

racist ideology. For those who have not realised it yet, the

Zionism that presented itself initially as a secular project

was, in fact, a crude attempt to transform the Bible into a

land registry document, and an attempt to turn God into a

nasty estate agent. It should be understood that Zionism

follows a completely different political operative mode to

any other settler state, and the colonial paradigm is simply

incapable of fully addressing that.



But here is the good news: interestingly enough, it has been

artists rather than “intellectuals” who have been brave

enough to speak out. At a certain stage they started to

equate images of Palestine with those of the Jewishholocaust, and it was artists who were brave enough to

juxtapose Palestinian kids with Jewish ones.

Silvia Cattori: Yes, but can we really compare the two?

Gilad Atzmon: Why not? We compare between two

ideologies, between two racist ethnocentric precepts. It was

the artists who came up with that simple and essential truth.

It was the artists who dismantled the colonial paradigm in

just a one swift move. Seemingly our artists are well ahead

of our “intellectuals”.

Silvia Cattori: I would like further understand your objection tothose who consider Israel a colonialist State. Already in the sixties,

South Africa severed institutional relations with Great Britain

and had withdrawn from the Commonwealth. Thus there was no

more a "motherland" outside South Africa. And yet the Black

population fought the “settlers” who had installed the apartheid.

In that sense, can we not consider that there is a similarity withthe present struggle of the Palestinians for their rights against

Jewish settlers who settled on their land, and that this struggle is,

in a way, a struggle against colonialism? It is true that white

South Africans did not implement murderous tactics against the

natives. Is it because you’re focusing on this point and

emphasising the comparison with the Nazi holocaust that you put



forward the uniqueness of the Zionist project, instead of

colonialism?

Gilad Atzmon: The big question I try to raise here is: whycan’t we practice coherent scholarship? The issues

surrounding the appropriation of the colonial paradigm is

obviously just one example. We are subject to a lethal

tyranny of political correctness.

You are right suggesting that some settler states drift away

from their respective motherlands; however, Israel didn’t

drift away from any motherland because it has never had a

motherland. Zionism was never a colonial project in that

sense The colonial paradigm is a spin.

The big question to ask is; why are “the Left” and Jewish

anti-Zionists desperately clinging to the colonial paradigm?And here is my answer:

1. It is safe; it makes the criticism of the Jewish state look

legitimate.

2. It conveys the hope of a resolution: If Israel is indeed, just

a settler state like any of the other earlier historical examplesit will eventually assimilate into the region and become a

“normal” state.

Where is the problem in such an approach, you might ask?

Well, it is pretty obvious this entire discourse is actually

completely irrelevant to the Zionist disease. It is like treating



a patient who has bowel cancer with some strong diarrhea

pills just because the symptoms are slightly similar.

Disastrously enough, this is the level of our left-intellectualdiscourse at the present time.

Silvia Cattori: But those within the solidarity movement, who

denounce “Israeli colonialism”, criticise Israeli racist agenda and

support the right to return aren’t they saying exactly the same

thing as you are saying?

Gilad Atzmon: To start with, we are indeed part of the same

movement, and I guess that we are driven by the same

ethical intuitions.

However, there is a clear difference between us, because by

employing the “colonial paradigm” their intention is tocommunicate the idea that the Jewish national project is

entirely reminiscent of a 19Th century national trend. This is

to say that, just like most other European settler nations, the

Jews happened to celebrate their “national symptoms” it is

just that they did so after everyone else.

The “colonial paradigm” is then, invoked to also support the

idea that Israel is an apartheid state, and pretty much like

most other earlier colonial settings. My approach is totally

different, because I would argue that Israel and Zionism is a

unique project in history, and the relationship between Israel

and the operation of the Jewish Lobbies in the West is alsototally unique in history. I would even take it further, and



say that whilst the Palestinians are indeed at the fore front

of a battle for humanity, the fact is that we are all subject to

Zionist global politics. According to my model, the credit

crunch is in fact a Zionist “punch”. The war in Iraq is aZionist war. I would argue forcefully that Zionism has a

long time ago moved from the “promised land” narrative into

the “promised planet” nightmare. I also argue that it would be

impossible to bring peace to the world unless we confront

the true meaning of contemporary Jewish ideology.

Interestingly enough, many of those who enthusiastically

support the “colonial paradigm”, were also very quick to

denounce the work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

on the Israeli Lobby. If Mearsheimer and Walt are correct,

and I think that they are, then it is Jewish power which we

have to confront.

And this is exactly what the “Jewish Left” and Jewish

intelligentsia are there to prevent us from doing.

Silvia Cattori: Your views clearly oppose intellectuals such as

Bernard-Henry Lévy who support Western expansionism and

Israeli policies. For you Israel is the danger. Don’t you think thatsome people see there an element of provocation?

Gilad Atzmon: Provocation is not a bad thing. I wrote an

article recently about Bernard-Henry Lévy. The man is lame

beyond belief. We have more than a few “Bernard-Henri

Levys” here in Britain too, Jews who portray a false image of scholarship. And as it happens, we intellectually smash



them, one by one. We expose them for what they are. By the

way, Norman Finkelstein did a great job with Dershowitz.

We should not be scared about it all.

Also, I think that by the time people don’t have enough

money to put petrol in the car let alone buy bread, they will

start to look at who is to blame, and when that happens, the

Israeli State and its relentless lobbies will emerge at the top

of the list. I think that some people are starting to see it now,

already. The change will be drastic. I guess that inretrospect, some people can look at my writing now, and

admit that I was warning the Jewish lobbies for years.

Silvia Cattori: What differentiates Gilad Atzmon from those who

say, "I am a Jewish anti-Zionist"; "We are Jews for peace", etc, yet

always highlighting their tribal identity?

Gilad Atzmon: It is very simple: for me, the fight for peace

is a fight for a universal cause. For me, to support the

Palestinians is an ethical necessity. And if it is a universal

cause and an ethical necessity, I do not see any reason to

fight it “as a Jew”, “as a man”, or “as a jazz artist”. When I

come across those who call themselves “Jews for peace” and“Jews for justice”, I stand up and say “what do you really mean

by calling yourself a ‘Jew’? Are you religious?” When a Torah

Jew says he identifies as a Jew I know what he refers to.

When Torah Jews say “we are religious Jews and we support

Palestine in the name of our faith”, I say “go ahead, you have my

support”.



But when secular Jews tell me that they work for Palestine

in the name of their Jewish values, I must ask them “What

are your ‘Jewish secular values’”? I have studied and carefully

considered the subject, and, as embarrassing as it maysound, there is no such thing as a “Jewish secular value

system”.

Those who refer to such ideas are either lying, misleading

others, or even misleading themselves.

Silvia Cattori: If I understood well, those who identify

themselves as “anti-Zionist Jews” or “Jews for peace” believe that

this makes their voice louder than others’ voice.

Gilad Atzmon: For sure, and that is a valid point. But again,

I still have some reservations, because if I say “I am a Jew for

peace,” and I believe that this is enough to make my voicemore important than yours, what it really means is that I am

still consciously celebrating my chosen-ness. And isn’t that

exactly the problem we have with Zionism?

So, fundamentally, Jewish anti-Zionism is still just another

manifestation of Jewish tribal supremacy. It seems peculiarthat peace activists, who claim to be universalist leftists, end

up operating in racially oriented cells.

Silvia Cattori: Is this consciously a way to humiliate non Jewish

people?



Gilad Atzmon: That is possible; but I do not think that Jews

who succumb to Jewish tribal politics are really conscious of

the effect it has on others.

Silvia Cattori: Israelis who describe themselves as ex-Israelis, ex-

Jews, are very rare. Are you the only one?

Gilad Atzmon: I may as well be the only one. However, I do

not really talk as an ex-Jew I talk as Gilad Atzmon. I

avoid collective banners. When you read me, you read what

I think. You see it for what it is, and you either agree, or you

don’t agree. I do not need flags or phantasmic identities to

hide behind.

Silvia Cattori: Few famous artists have had the courage to stand

up openly and firmly for victims of Israeli oppression. We know

that, in general, well known people are afraid to be placed on the"anti-Semitic" list. Rogers Waters has dared to break the taboo.

David Gilmour, Robert Wyatt, followed. What do you say to those

who are still scared?

Gilad Atzmon: I believe that the only way to liberate

ourselves is to begin to talk. The only way to fight is toexpress ourselves openly. I have taken that risk and if I can

do it, then I think that everyone can do it. I have paid a price

in that my career has suffered a little, and I make less

money. But I can look at myself with pride.

Silvia Cattori: To those who would argue that your politicalpositions are, let’s say, “borderline”, what do you answer?



Gilad Atzmon: I do not actually know what “borderline”

means. For years I encountered endless attempts to silence

me, but they all proved to be counter effective because if

anything, the repressive measures taken against me broughtmany more people to read my materials, and encouraged

more people to think things through for themselves. I was

accused by Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists of being racist

and anti Semitic, but embarrassingly enough for them, not a

single anti Semitic or racist argument has ever been found in

my many papers. On the contrary, there is an anti racist attitude that stands at the very core of my criticism of

Jewish identity politics and Jewish ideology. I have been

writing now for ten years, and for all those years, I have had

a note on my web site saying “If you find something racist or

anti-Semitic in my writings, let me know. I will apologise and

remove it immediately”. And not a single person has evercome up with anything.

As I mentioned before, I differentiate between Jews (the

people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the

ideology). I am against Jewish ideology not against

Jewish people or Judaism. If this makes me into a “borderlinecase”, then I will have to live with it.

Silvia Cattori: Your voice helps people to understand what Israel

is all about. In general, covering this subject is not easy. However,

should not journalists take more responsibilities in exposing the

power games that devastate the Middle East? What have been the

responsibilities in this regard of Western media?



Gilad Atzmon: I will be very honest with you; Western

media has failed all the way. Western media has betrayed

us. It has failed to understand that Palestine is not that far

from our “Western haven”. The media have failed to see thatwe are all Palestinians Palestinians are at the forefront of

the battle against evil, but the rest of us are fighting in

exactly the same battle, and we are all confronting the same

enemy. What happened in America with the credit crunch

and evolved into economic turmoil is the direct outcome of

global Zionist politics.

America invests its tax payers’ money maintaining the

Jewish State and it launched its people into a war to “save

Israel”. Consequently, we are all facing a financial disaster,

and as we speak, the Arab masses are rising: they demand

liberation, and they want an immediate end to the Zio-political grip. What you see now in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain

and Yemen is there to prepare us all, and we may well see

the same thing unfolding soon in Berlin, Paris, London,

Madrid, Barcelona, and New York City, because we all face

the same enemy.

Silvia Cattori: I wonder whether your readers understand what

you refer to when talking about Zionism and global Zionism.

Gilad Atzmon: That is indeed a very crucial point. You may

find it hard to believe but even Israelis do not understand

what Zionism is all about. Zionism is the belief that Jews

(like all other people) should be entitled to celebrate theirright for a national homeland, and this homeland is Zion



(Palestine). Though this idea sounds almost innocent, it is

entangled with very problematical ethical issues, because

Zionism has morphed into political reality in the shape of a

Jewish State, built entirely at the expense of the ethnicallycleansed and abused Palestinian people. Moreover, along

the years, the Jewish State has been utilising some very

powerful lobbies and think tanks in our Western capitals;

and these bodies promote global Zionist interests such as

endless confrontation with Islam and the Muslim world.

While early Zionism presented itself as a promise to redeem

all the Diaspora Jews by means of settlement in the so-called

“promised land”, in the last three decades Zionism has

changed its spots in some regards The Jewish State

actually prefers some of the Diaspora Jews to stay exactly

where they are so they can mount pressure on theirrespective governments for the sake of what they interpret

as their Jewish interests.

The role of Jewish lobbies such as of AIPAC, J-street (USA)

and Conservative Friends of Israel (UK) is far more

advantageous to Israel than any wave of Jewish

immigration to Palestine could be. This transformation in

Zionist thought signals a shift from the local to the global,

and therefore, Zionism should no longer be solely perceived

as a demand for a Jewish home in the “promised land”

Rather it must be grasped as a global operation, seeking a

safe haven for the Jews within the context of “promised

planet.”



The Israelis and their allies know very well why they

promote Islamophobia. But what is Islamophobia? What,

and who, does it serve? It serves Zio-centric Capitalist

interests. Islamophobia is the true face of Hasbara (Israelipropaganda). It is there to make sure that Israel’s “survival

war” is actually a Western war.

This is obviously misleading, and for the sake of Western

interests, shunning Israel immediately would be the right

thing to do.

Silvia Cattori: When do you see the emergence of Islamophobia

and what was the cause?

Gilad Atzmon: That is a good question historically, it

probably first arose in the seventies, soon after the energy

crisis. I think that by 1973, we could clearly detect the firstsigns of modern political and institutional anti-Muslim

antipathy as the Western public began to realise the strategic

role of the Middle East. The shift towards a “popular anti

Muslim culture” was exacerbated further by the success of

Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”, and I would argue that

by 9.11. 2001, the Western public was primed for anoutbreak of “Muslim bashing”. I will never forget Ehud

Barak being interviewed on that day, spreading bile and

Islamophobic accusations on every Western media outlet.

For Israeli Hasbara agitators, 9/11 was proof of the “unified

ethos” shared between Israel and the (Western) Goyim.



I would like to elaborate more on your question regarding

Islamophobia. I realised some time ago that the general

acceptability of certain minorities can always be measured

by the popularity -or unpopularity- of its “self-haters”. Thegrowing popularity of Muslim “self-haters” in the 1970-90’s

era could have suggested that a wave of anti Islamic feelings

was on its way to our shore. Similarly, the antagonism

towards Jewish “self-haters” in the last decade confirms the

success and influence of Jewish lobbies within media and

politics. I guess that the rise of my popularity certainlyindicates that the tide has indeed turned. We can firmly

anticipate a tidal wave of resentment towards Israel.

Silvia Cattori: What is fascinating about you is your freedom of

speech. You can’t stand the truth being “half told”. Isn’t it the

case?

Gilad Atzmon: I think that is a good way to put it. I have

developed a severe allergy to spins and deceitful narratives.

As I said before I do not claim to know the truth; however, I

am pretty effective in detecting lies, ploys and diversions.

Being a philosopher I am also effective in raising questions

and deconstructing inconsistencies. I am puzzled by the

activists around us who believe that we can beat Zionism by

sketching out some phantasmic narratives of resistance. I

honestly believe that truth-seeking and total openness will

prevail. If you want to grasp the growing popularity of my

writing, I guess that this is what it is instead of playing

political games I really try to get to the bottom of it all. I try



to understand what it is that drives and fuels Zionism,

Israel, Jewish lobbying, neoconservative expansionist wars

and even Jewish anti Zionism.

And I guess that by now, you realise that I identify Jewish

Ideology rather than Jews or Judaism as the crux of

these precepts and political views.

Silvia Cattori: Thank you.

Documents

To Call A Spade A Spade