To Call A Spade A Spade: An Interview With Gilad Atzmon By Silvia Cattori
01 March 2011
By Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon is an outstandingly charming
man. He is often described by music critics as one of
the finest contemporary jazz saxophonists. But Atzmon
is more than just a musician: for those who follow
events in the Middle East, he is considered to be one
of the most credible voices amongst Israeli opponents.
In the last decade he has relentlessly exposed and
denounced barbarian Israeli policies. Just before his
departure on a European Spring Tour,
As a jazz musician, what brought you
to use your pen as a weapon against the country where
you were born and against your people?
For many years my music and writings were not
integrated at all. I became a musician when I was
seventeen 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 it claimed 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 dismissed the
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
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,
and between 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.
Would you argue that there is a
discrepancy between Jews and left?
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 simply happen 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 "Jewish pluralism".
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.
Do you fight alone?
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
solidarity movement, 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
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 tries to 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 the
Middle East. As we know by now, "the
Left's' tolerance", somehow evaporates when it
comes to Islam and Muslims. I find it very
Can you explain why the Left is
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
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 idea I 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 as long 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 clichιs 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
When we listen to your political
comments we forget that you are primarily a musician.
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 dichotomy between "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.
You are really a free spirit.
That is because I am not political. I am an artist and
a musician; it is very simple.
We can hardly imagine what would you
be if you had stayed in Israel?
It would be impossible to imagine.
Are you an exception among Israelis?
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 be stabbed 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.
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
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.
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.
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, for within 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 the colonial/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,
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 is not 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
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 Jewish holocaust, and it was artists who were
brave enough to juxtapose Palestinian kids with Jewish
Yes, but can we really compare the
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".
I would like further understand your
objection to those 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 with the 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?
The big question I try to raise here is: why can'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
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 examples it will eventually
assimilate into the region and become a "normal"
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-intellectual discourse at the present
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?
To start with, we are indeed part of the same
movement, and I guess that we are driven by the same
However, there is a clear difference
between us, because by employing the "colonial
paradigm" their intention is to communicate 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
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 also totally 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 a Zionist 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
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.
Your views clearly oppose
intellectuals such as Bernard-Henry Lιvy who support
Western expansionism and Israeli policies. For you
Israel is the danger. Don't you think that some people
see there an element of provocation?
Provocation is not a bad thing. I wrote an article
recently about Bernard-Henry Lιvy. 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
in retrospect, some people can look at my writing now,
and admit that I was warning the Jewish lobbies for
What differentiates Gilad Atzmon from
those who say, "I am a Jewish anti-Zionist"; "We are
Jews for peace", etc, yet always highlighting their
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 may sound, 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
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.
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 voice more 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 peculiar that peace activists, who
claim to be universalist leftists, end up operating in
racially oriented cells.
Is this consciously a way to
humiliate non Jewish people?
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.
Israelis who describe themselves as
ex-Israelis, ex-Jews, are very rare. Are you the only
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.
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?
I believe that the only way to liberate ourselves is
to begin to talk. The only way to fight is to express
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
To those who would argue that your
political positions are, let's say, "borderline", what
do you answer?
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 brought many 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 ever
come 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 "borderline case",
then I will have to live with it.
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?
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 that we
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
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.
I wonder whether your readers
understand what you refer to when talking about
Zionism and global Zionism.
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 their right 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
ethnically cleansed 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
their respective governments for the sake of what they
interpret as their Jewish interests.
The role of Jewish lobbies such as of
(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 (Israeli propaganda). 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.
When do you see the emergence of
Islamophobia and what was the cause?
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 first signs 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 an outbreak 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)
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".
The growing 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 certainly indicates
that the tide has indeed turned. We can firmly
anticipate a tidal wave of resentment towards Israel.
What is fascinating about you is your
freedom of speech. You can't stand the truth being
"half told". Isn't it the case?
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