Israeli occupation: Calling A Spade A Spade

AN INTERVIEW WITH GILAD ATZMON

By Silvia Cattori

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, “The Tide Has Changed “, with his band the Orient House
Ensemble, he spoke to Silvia Cattori.

Gilad Atzmon

Silvia Cattori: As a jazz musician, what brought you to use your pen
as a weapon [1] against the country where you were born and against
your people?
Gilad Atzmon: 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 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,
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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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.

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 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. [2]
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, 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, 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 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 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 Jewish holocaust, 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 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 are focusing on this point that
you put in the center the uniqueness of the Zionist project, rather than
colonialism?

Gilad Atzmon: 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 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 examples it 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-intellectual discourse 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 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 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 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 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 that some people
see there an element of provocation?

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

recently about Bernard-Henry Lévy [3]. 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 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 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 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 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.

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. Roger Waters has dared to break the taboo [4]. 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 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 pride.

Silvia Cattori: To those who would argue that your political positions
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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 (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.

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 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) 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”. 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.
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.

[1] See the website of Gilad Atzmon:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/

[2] See: “Truth in Stuttgart”, by Gilad Atzmon, gilad.co.uk, 19 February, 2011.

[3] See: “The French Philosopher”, by Gilad Atzmon, gilad.co.uk, 4 February

2011.

[4] See: “Roger Waters, a Man and an exceptional Artist ”, by Silvia Cattori,
silviacattori.net, 8 February 2011.

http://www.silviacattori.net/article1540.html