Exposing two notorious pro-Israel warmongers
How Gilad Atzmon routed David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen
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.
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 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 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”1. They are there to work for the Jews and they
are fully rewarded accordingly.
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 Hasbara2
Committee as one of their authors. The Israeli Propaganda (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.
Notes
1. Sabbath Goy: Originally, a non-Jew who does work on Sabbath that a
Jew cannot do. In modern times, it is a non-Jew who toadies to the every
wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics, or a non-Jew who is
heavily supportive of Israel.
2. Hasbara is Hebrew for propaganda.
