Gilad Atzmon on Israel's invasion of Lebanon...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Gilad Atzmon
Online Journal Guest Writer

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1149.shtml

<snip>

It is now clear that as much as the Israeli Army doesn’t know how to win a war, the Israeli people do not know how to lose one. Already at the late stages of the recent wave of hostility in Lebanon the Israelis were desperately searching for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone who would take personal responsibility for the humiliating Israeli collective defeat.

It didn’t take long before the Israelis turned en mass against Dan Halutz, their IDF Chief of Staff. They accused him of being an ‘arrogant pilot,’ for being ‘detached from reality’ and for ‘not preparing the Army to win a war.’ Dan Halutz, no doubt a qualified war criminal as well as an Israeli stock exchange inside trader, dismissed his critics. Yet, as one may expect, Halutz wouldn’t stand up and admit in public that the leader of a miniscule Arab paramilitary force, the legendary Hassan Nasrallah, was just slightly better than himself in wining a battle and concluding a war. In fact, Nasrallah was just better than every Israeli general in using his force, in maneuvering his fighting units, in strategic moves and tactical decisions. Halutz and his staff generals wouldn’t admit it because being Israeli soldiers, a product of Jewish nationalism and crude racism, they are all supremacist to the bone.

While in a meeting with reservist commanders last week Halutz learned about an IDF commander who refused to rescue combatants just because “they were not under his direct command.” He learned as well about another Israeli commander who managed to evade the battlefield in the midst of the fight. The commander was found hours later hiding inside a tank. Yes, the Israelis are far from being heroes; their paratroopers do not shoot from the hip as much as their tank commanders do not expose their upper body while the battle goes on. They all prefer to hide behind their glorious Merkava tank’s armour. However, they all fail to admit that the Hezbollah are just exactly the opposite. The Hezbollah warriors do shoot from the hip and they don’t have armoured vehicles to hide in. Yet, the Israelis would prefer blaming themselves rather than simply admitting that an Arab fighter happens to be just slightly better.

These days, an extensive Israeli reservist rebellion is emerging in Israel. The humiliated IDF fighters are somehow very unhappy. They felt unprepared for the war. Their weapons were faulty, so they say. They lacked the necessary gear. The ‘catering services’ failed to serve their food exactly when they expected it. If this isn’t enough, they insist as well that intelligence was misleading and orders where confusing. Like the archetypal Jewish mother, the newly born Hebraic Samson is a venerable effeminate character who would prefer to endorse the role of the victim. I believe that when the Israelis engage in self-criticism they tend to regard themselves as a collective of outspoken liberal beings. But in fact, they all lie to themselves. By putting themselves down, they save themselves from confessing the clear fact that, at least in this round, the ‘Arabs’ were just far better...

[geek tragedy]

1. Atzmon is a Jew-baiting, bigoted freak of nature.

Fuck him and anyone who thinks like him.

[IntiRaymi]

4. It is a bit ironic for you to say that.

Consider the following quoten from the piece:
"Yet, as one may expect, Halutz wouldn’t stand up and admit in public that the leader of a miniscule Arab paramilitary force, the legendary Hassan Nasrallah, was just slightly better than himself in wining a battle and concluding a war. In fact, Nasrallah was just better than every Israeli general in using his force, in maneuvering his fighting units, in strategic moves and tactical decisions. Halutz and his staff generals wouldn’t admit it because being Israeli soldiers, a product of Jewish nationalism and crude racism, they are all supremacist to the bone."
Interesting things to say about him.
So he is being a bigot for accusing others of being bigots?

[geek tragedy]

6. No, he's a bigot because

he has a long history of publishing virulently anti-Jewish opinion pieces.

[IntiRaymi]

9. OK, so I haven't been casing this particular radical like some have.

Tell me.
Why is an israeli being so 'virulently' anti-jewish? Does he have valid points?

[geek tragedy]

10. I don't care to psychoanalyze putrid bigots. eom

[geek tragedy]

11. Here are a couple of quotes from him:

"“We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously."

“American Jewry makes any debate on whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zionitic forgery are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.”

[IntiRaymi]

13. Too many litmus tests.

If someone has something valid to say, it ought to be taken seriously.
To me, the illuminating thing, is that he considers the hardcore of the IDF to be a group of supremacists, which jives quite closely with my impressions.
But I don't think jewish groups are on a drive to control the world. It is not their history and, if anything, they have been used as convenient scapegoats by the true centers of power in the world.

[geek tragedy]

14. Articles by bigots aren't allowed in this forum. eom

Especially those who express bigotry towards Jews, Muslims, or Arabs.

[IntiRaymi]

15. Who defines the bigot?

Is there a consensus, and if so, who manipulates the consensus?

[geek tragedy]

30. The consensus is that anyone who refers to Jews as "Christ killers"

and who says that they are worse than the Nazis is a Jew-baiting bigot.

[Phx_Dem]

2. flame bait

[geek tragedy]

3. This article is anti-Semitic filth.

"Like the archetypal Jewish mother, the newly born Hebraic Samson is a venerable effeminate character who would prefer to endorse the role of the victim."

:puke:

[azurnoir]

5. Even though I don't

necessarily agree with his analysis of the recent"war", Gilad Atzmon isn't an anti-Semitic. he is an anti-Zionist Israeli Jew who has served in the IDF.http://www.gilad.co.uk/

[geek tragedy]

8. Wrong.

He's an anti-semite.

He was born a Jew, but now is a pig bigot.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Too broad a brush- whatever valid points he has are lost in...

...a ham-handed approach at discussing a very complex issue which necessitates specificity lest his accusations devolve to the very same brand of over-generalization of a group which he deplores the overgeneralizing behavior of. Given a deeper understanding of the issue I would hope he could return with a more articulate argument. He may be a Jew in Israel but his criticism is so roundly-condemning that one wonders who would be left if all he disagreed with were removed from power. I levy the same criticism at Progressives in the United States who achieve such an isolationist perspective as to really question if they believe their plight is winnable: They condemn so many, so deeply, one wonders if there would be enough to bake the bread and drive the busses if their grandest thoughts came to fruition.

“He who struggles with monsters should ensure that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss also stares back into you.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

PB

[IntiRaymi]

12. So, in the face of a drive to be banal

A little heart is a bad thing?

[Poll_Blind]

22. It is not banality I strive for, but specificity. The creation of...

...Israel in Palestine, the political, cultural, religious and military resonance and harmonization both in Israel and the United States are things which necessitate research and understanding before making sweeping condemnations. It is something that I believe every political researcher, on every topic, grapples with as they gain knowledge which helps refine their viewpoint. It is irresistible, at every stage of knowledge on any subject, to, viewing that vista, comment on it.

  However such commentary, when made from base camp, to use a mountain-climbing analogy, may be accurate in generalities but obstacles on the horizon provide for as much, or more, confusion as anything viewable from that meager height.

  For instance, his use of the phrase "The Israelis are racist to the bone." Certainly there is racism in Israel, but making such a proclamation indicates unintentional ignorance or willful deception about the struggle between the generally-secular Left and the generally-religious Right in Israel. To say "The Americans are racist to the bone." is equally specious- again ignoring the reality of the struggle between the generally-secular Left and the generally-religious Right in our own country.

  Look at these results of the last Israeli election. Sheer number of parties aside, does these results really describe a nation as ideologically uniform as he implies? He could have learned a lesson or two from the DU I/P rules. He does not carefully choose his words. Does he really mean the Israeli Government when he says Israeli? Does he mean the current government or all previous Israeli governments' common denominators? Or does he mean Israeli citizens? Because of a lack of attention to polishing his points his message is obscured by his emotions, which dominate. As a reader who attempts to consume messages like this with a critical eye for the underlying meaning, I taste little except his anger.

  And that is a shame because he has very arguable points, but doesn't bother supporting them.

  This piece is not worthy of consideration as anything worthy of public review. That is not directed at the poster here at DU, it is my judgment on the article itself. It qualifies, at best, as social and political commentary too heavily inflected by emotion to be persuasive, at worst, the equivalent of a private message between two people of the same political and ideological persuasion, the unspoken shorthand between the two lost on a third-party reader.

A little heart is a bad thing?

  No, a little heart is never a bad thing. But having a little information can be a dangerous thing. As I stated at the beginning of this reply, it is irresistible as a political researcher not to comment on things we are only just learning about. Anyone can make any statement based on any level of understanding of a topic but that does not make it persuasive.

  Also, and this is worth squeezing in, I believe that everyone who argues I/P, whichever side of the issue they are on, should be very wary of making the mistake of supporting a commentary which, merely on the face of it, seems to agree with your own conclusions, but is shady on the why they come to those conclusions. Differing agendas and motivations draw various persons to discussion of this conflict and it is better to disagree with someone for not being specific enough in some pretty generalized condemnations (which one may even agree with for one's own reasons and research) than to throw-in with someone whose ideology you may be unpleasantly surprised by on further research.

PB

[IntiRaymi]

29. All points you make *appear* to be sound.

The message you are conveying though, may not be.
For instance,
-You are essentially exhorting people to 'watch what they say,'
-You insinuate that, because Israel has a great and diverse political environment, we should somehow feel confortable with the various acts of needless aggression it perpetrates on the various people that surround it,
-You are confusing personal racism with institutional racism,
All put together give me the impression of someone that is skilled at high quality semantic manipulation.
The blog post, the O.P., could be interpreted a number of ways, especially with regards to the racism issue, and I choose to look at it from the perspective of the institutional version of this, and in this Israel is certainly at fault (as is the USA).

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. Too broad a brush? Or too close to the truth?...

...Sure Atzmon is angry, and it certainly comes across in his writing, but what does Israel's behavior over the last 40 years of an illegal and brutally oppressive occupation of Palestine suggest to you? That they respect their neighbors? That they think of them as equals? That they believe Palestinians also deserve some decent standard of living, and the same opportunities to pursue happiness and wealth in life as Israelis?

Atzmon is Jewish, lives in Israel, and has come to these conclusions based on his observations and personal experience there, and while I don't necessarily take all his commentary at face value, neither do I think he can rightly be simply dismissed as an anti-semite. He deserves to be heard.

[IntiRaymi]

17. He definitely sounds like someone who refused to be a part of the herd.

I really wish he would stop raising flags like this.

[geek tragedy]

20. He's no different than David Duke when the subject

is Israel and Jews. Maybe worse.

People who don't recognize Atzmon's anti-Jewish bigotry are incapable of recognizing bigotry.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. I think his writing (anger laced as it may be) is an expression...

...of his profound disappointment in his fellow countrymen, not one of bigotry. Just my opinion.

[geek tragedy]

28. He calls Jews "Christ Killers." eom

[The Magistrate]

18. Sound Comments, Mr. Blind

The thing is calamatously over the top, and what sound points might be concealed within will justly go unremarked, as the atmospherics will disuade anyone without a pretty strong stomach from close examination. One gets the impression this is a person who just plain does not like his fellows, and would be much happier as the sole inhabitant of a cabin or cave in some far off wilderness....

"People are fucking people, and that is fucked up!"

[IntiRaymi]

19. I get a different impression

He appears to have decided to call a turd by its proper name.
Now, if you'd like to quibble over wording, we can do that.

[geek tragedy]

21. You get the wrong impression, and would do well to educate

yourself on Mr. Atzmon.

[IntiRaymi]

23. Perhaps I have noticed one thing about him.

He has labeled the commanding staff of the IDF as 'supremacists.' This is my opinion of them, as well, since what else would explain their methods (towards palestinians, in general, where Halutz got his reputation).
When a country is built around its military, as Israel is, that country will be imbued with a powerful us vs. them mentality, which, at its core, is racist.

[The Magistrate]

26. Where A Country Must Rely On Military Power For Survival, Sir

And exists of necessity in a state of war with peoples who desire its destruction, its people will see little need to satisfy fastidious foreigners by its actions or attitudes. It would be quite easy to present a sound argument for the prevelance of religious bigotry and religious and racial bigotry and supramicism among the motivations of the Arab and Moslem enemies of Israel in this generational conflict, and doing so would be as useless as making the attempt in the other direction. The fact is that people at war fear, hate, and despise their opponents: it is necessary element of the enterprise, and affects all participants on every side.

[The Magistrate]

24. He Knows The Dark Joys Of Fulmination, Sir

And lacks the character to enjoy them without being consumed by the drug....

"First the man drinks the sake, then the sake drinks the man."

[geek tragedy]

27. "Zionists and Christ Killers" by Gilad Atzmon

Zionists are annoyed when they are blamed for the death of Jesus. (I am referring here to the Jewish American organisations' reaction to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ." Many people around the world regarded the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus 'again').

I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was Himself a Palestinian Jew. But then two questions should be asked:

1. How is it that people living today feel accountable or chased for a crime committed by their great great great ancestors almost 2,000 years ago? I assume that those Jews who get angry when blamed for killing Jesus are those who identify themselves with Jesus' killers. Those who would commit this murderous act today. Those Jews are called Zionists and they are already advancing into their sixth decade of inhuman crimes against the Palestinian people and the Arab world. Zionism, for those who do not know, is a repetition of the darkest age of the Jewish Biblical era. It isn't that surprising therefore that Zionists have selected the most suicidal chapters in Jewish history (such as Massada and Bar Cochva) and turned them into the pillars of their reborn culture. On the other hand, we must praise the Zionists for being consistent. Zionists claim that the whole of Palestine belongs to the Jews because their Jewish ancestors lived there 2,000 ago. Jews attempting to live on confiscated Palestinian lands nowadays regard themselves as the same Jews who lived in Palestine two millennia ago. This must explain why Zionists are so offended when they are blamed for the actions of Judas. They are offended because they are all Judases. Might I remind the reader that the Judases of today are armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons without being signed to any international control treaty.

2. Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus? I wouldn't ask the Italians to apologise on behalf of the Romans for their part in Christ's killing simply because Italians do not feel remotely offended when Romans are blamed for it. I merely suggest that if a Jew feels offended when accused, this reveals attachment to the perpetrators. It might be the right time for the Jewish state to ask for forgiveness on behalf of the Jewish people for their immoral behaviour.

I assume that the following lingual fact isn't known to most Gentiles. Jews do not use the name 'Jesus' when referring to Christ. Instead, they use the Hebrew word 'Yeshu' which means "may his name and memory be erased for ever" (yeshu - Yimach Shemo Vzichro). I do want to believe that most ordinary Jews are not familiar with the etymology of the name Yeshu. In the Jewish hierarchy of insults this is the gravest and most disrespectful. This combination of words is usually attached to Hitler and evils of his calibre. Jesus, it would appear, is considered by Jewish spiritual leaders as the embodiment of all evil. I ask myself, if Jesus was as bad as Hitler (in the eyes of the rabbis), why is it that the Jews are so offended when blamed for killing him? Why don't they regard his killing as the most glamorous chapter of their history?

Zionists are always outraged when they are equated with Nazis. They will say that to claim 'yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators' is a form of 'Holocaust denial' and will argue that describing Israel as the root of all evil justifies the Holocaust. With great shame I have to agree that Israel's behaviour throws some light on the persecution of Jews throughout history. Perhaps it is time to dispose of the notion of 'Holocaust denial'.

Westerners are very concerned not to be associated with any form of Holocaust denial. In some countries Holocaust denial is treated as a criminal offence. For years I have argued that Holocaust denial is not a particularly interesting subject because as a notion it is far too wide. In practice, <B>anyone who tries to oppose the official Zionist interpretation of World War II events instantly becomes a 'Holocaust denier'. Some Zionists went so far as to accuse Roberto Benigni of Holocaust denial when he made his masterpiece, "Life is Beautiful".

It is true that for quite a while the Zionists were fairly successful. They managed to stop the world from studying its history. Few people in Germany, in Israel or anywhere else know about the extensive collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis before and during World War II. I am not a historian and the question of whether 6 million or rather 5,500,000 Jews died in the Holocaust is not really my major concern. For me, the act of killing is a catastrophe and 'state organised serial killing' is an unbearable and colossal catastrophe. Accordingly, the form of Holocaust denial that really bothers me is the denial of the on-going Palestinian Holocaust. This Holocaust is documented and covered daily by the western media. The turning of residential Palestinian cities into concentration camps; the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population; the withholding of medical aid from Palestinian civilians; the wall that tears the holy land into isolated cantons and Bantustans; the continuous bombardment of civilians by the IDF - are known to us all. This Holocaust is committed by the Jewish state with the support of world Jewry. This Holocaust, despite being well documented, is largely ignored. This is the most serious form of Holocaust denial. Moreover, I would suggest that the Zionists promote the issue of Holocaust denial so as to spread heavy smoke in an attempt to hide their own atrocities. The Zionists are the ones to be blamed for committing a holocaust and being the first to deny it.

Israel and the Zionist venture are principally responsible for any anti-Jewish outrage. It is time for Jews to stand up against their nationalistic movement. It is time for the world to stand up against the Zionist crime. As we learn from a recent EU poll, 58 per cent of Europeans regard Israel as the biggest threat to world peace. They are right. The Jewish state must be stopped and the sooner the better.

At this point some Zionists would try to revise their argument and claim that real anti-Semitism is in fact a form of blind hatred towards Jews regardless of their politics and misdoings. They would say that a Jew is hated just for being a Jew. My response would be that though such hatred might exist it needn't be labelled 'anti-Semitism'. It is xenophobia, defined by the Oxford Dictionary as an 'intense dislike or fear of foreigners or strangers'. Perhaps Jews aren't so unique after all.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1666560_comment.php

[undergroundrailroad]

31. Locking per I/P guidelines.

This is not a recent news article but an opinion piece.


Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
Israel/Palestine Forum