Showing posts with label Gilad Atzmon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gilad Atzmon. Show all posts

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Gilad Atzmon: Winners and Losers

Despite relentless underhand efforts by Israeli operators in the UK and their close allies within the Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network to block a panel event discussing ‘Jewishness, Zionism and Israel’ , the debate went ahead as scheduled yesterday.
It was a tremendous success. Speaking to a full hall, Alan Hart, Karl Sabbagh, Sameh Habeeb and myself elaborated on the meaning of ‘Jewishness’ and the essence of Zionism.

But we also tried to understand once and for all; why is it that some of the Jews who claim to be the most sincere ‘supporters of Palestine’ -- are always amongst the first to stifle debate on such crucial issues?

Six years ago, I was shocked to learn about the destructive impact of elements within the UK Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network: at the time they were intent on burying ‘Deir Yassin Remembered’ (DYR), probably the most significant Nakba memorial group in the history of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Unfortunately, they succeeded-by putting into action the most repulsive Zionist tactics, the Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ did eventually manage to bring down DYR.

But in doing so, they also inflicted some serious damage on themselves. They were exposed for what they are -- a bunch of crypto Zionists. They smeared and defamed other activists; they lied, and they mounted pressure on Palestinian officials. They exposed the ugliest possible form of Zionist politics. I did not like what I saw and published a satirical expose of their tactics which I titled “The Protocols of the Elders of London”

Needless to say that my criticism was not welcome amongst UK Jewish ‘progressive’ leaders.

Recently I went back and read my expose and what is immediately evident is that not one single person who is mentioned in the piece has managed to maintain any influence whatsoever within the solidarity movement. After the publication of “The Elders of London,” the majority of the (so called )activists mentioned simply faded away into total obscurity and anonymity, and others joined ‘Zionist-left’ cells.

They all evaporated. Except for one Tony Greenstein. The ‘anti Zionist’ Greenstein has became my dedicated cyber-stalker, and – amusingly enough -- seems to want to assume the role of my ‘nemesis’. Day and night he continues to harass academics and many others who disseminate my work. It is worth mentioning that he carries out his harassment, often in the name of Palestinian BDS movement,[1] no less no more.

But Greenstein has at least achieved one thing -- he has managed to alienate himself even from everyone in this this movement including his Jewish allies, who are also reluctant to publish any of his repetitive slander
Kosher-leaks

One of yesterday’s panelists told me that was hounded for three days by twelve different Jewish ‘anti Zionists’. He also told me that all my detractors repeated the same line : “Gilad is not good for Palestine”.
Yet consider that not one single Palestinian and not one single Gentile joined the Jewish campaign against me, once again we witness a crude manifestation of Jewish exceptionalism: some Jews in the ‘anti Zionist’ movement clearly feel they ‘know better’ what is good for the Palestinians.

But how is it that they ‘know better’?

Is it that they are slightly more clever than the rest of us? Or is that they are just chosen -- which sounds pretty Zionist to me.

However, some Jews within the UK Jewish anti Zionist network are becoming increasingly embarrassed by their comrade’s dirty tactics: they went as far as leaking to me and others some internal correspondence within the ‘Jewish activists’ lists. For instance, I came across an email sent by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, a Jewish ethnic leader who was obviously foolish enough to brag openly about using BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine) to mount pressure on other Panelists and Palestinians who were scheduled to speak with me. 

I believe that from a solidarity perspective Wimborne-Idrissi’s and Greenstein’s actions border on betrayal: BRICUP and BDS are solidarity political instruments that were created to support Palestinians. And the last thing Palestinians need is Jewish activists exploiting these unique instruments -- solely in order to fight their own internal Jewish wars. If Wimborne-Idrissi and Greenstein insist that I am an anti Semite then they would be better off joining the ADL because clearly that is where they belong.

But Wimborne-Idrissi’s and Greenstein’s conduct should not take us by surprise. Max Blumenthal reported recently that Jeremy Ben Ami (‘J Street’s’ leader) stated that the “discussion on BDS” should stay “within the Jewish community.”

Keeping ‘J Street’s’ model in mind then, Wimborne-Idrissi and Greenstein probably do not see themselves as traitors: they are simply ‘loyal to the Jews’.

The tactics that were used this week by Wimborne-Idrissi, Greenstein and others are Rabbinical to the bone: exclusion and excommunication are inherent to Jewish Rabbinical thinking. Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa famously brought on themselves these measures, simply for being dissident voices. 

However, with me, these tactics have failed completely: frustratingly enough for my detractors, I am neither an activist, nor a campaigner, and I am certainly not a politician. In fact, I am not a member of any club at all. I am an independent truth seeker. I am not afraid of being alone. In fact I prefer to be on my own and say what has to be said without inflicting damage on anyone.

Clearly this is a unique state of mind that our ‘kosher Trotskyites’ cannot handle. The more pressure they mount on me -- the more they prove my argument. The more they attempt to harass me -- the more they prove my clear theories regarding their own duplicity and affliation.

They are in a limbo. They are in a no-win situation.

Years ago, I might have been slightly concerned by people like Wimborne-Idrissi and Greenstein. But nowadays, I realise that these people have no power or influence whatsoever within the solidarity movement, because it is patently clear to everyone that they are solely concerned with internal tribal matters. And the reality is, by acting as a constant noise on the periphery of our discourse, they provide the rest of us with an invaluable glimpse into the Zionist mind.

I am obviously not the first person to be subject to Jewish ‘anti Zionist’s’ slander. By now all truth seekers in our movement are more than familiar with their strategies and are tired of, and wary of their tactics. Sameh Habeeb, the founder of Palestine Telegraph told us yesterday that he is used to being approached by ‘kosher anti Zionists’ who preach to him who about who he should print and who is to be shunned and excluded.

Despite these endless, relentless Jewish campaigns against me, I have not ‘just survived it all’, but instead, I have managed to win, time after time,

I believe the reason for that is simple: there may be nothing particularly ‘clever’ or ‘sophisticated’ about me. I guess that I am not that original either. Yet, I am saying loudly what so many of us feel so strongly in our bellies: The reality is that Israel defines itself as ‘the Jewish State’. The reality is that Israel drops bombs from planes emblazoned with Jewish symbols. Therefore, surely the first question to be asked, is what ‘Jewishness’ means. And clearly, amongst the first people to oppose such a discussion, are the Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ themselves. Hence we should also investigate what their ‘Jewishness’ stand for. And we are certainly entitled to locate them within the Zionist spectrum.

It is evident that the tide has changed : these issues are now being explored by more and more people, and also, by more and more liberal Jews. I am in the USA at the moment, touring fundraising for different Palestinian causes. I am meeting many people, and I am delighted to say that I am scheduled to meet with some prominent Jewish progressive leaders and a Rabbi. Some of these people are now interested to rethink the meaning of Jewish identity in the light of the criticism I have been offering for a decade.

 Needless to say that in our talk yesterday in London, there were also Jews and Israelis present. They came to listen, learn, and think out of the box rather than to preach, harass, intimidate or protest.
Peace may prevail after all.


[1] In 2005, Palestinian civil society issued a call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Panel Event Update: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel

Sunday, May 1, 2011 at 6:22PM Gilad Atzmon
 
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160038250722935

Time:    Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location: We will meet outside Cavendish Campus’ main entrance, University Of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London W1W 6UW
Speaker's Include:
Alan Hart:
Author, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East.
Sameh A. Habeeb:
Palestinian Journalist, Palestine Telegraph.
Gilad Atzmon:
Jazz artist and author.
Karl Sabbagh:
Writer, television producer and publisher.
This is promised to be the event of the year.
Don’t miss it.
University Of Westminster, 115 New Cavendish Street, London W1W 6UW
Speaker's Include:
Alan Hart:
Author, former Middle East Chief Correspondent for Independent Television News and former BBC Panorama presenter specialising in the Middle East.
Sameh A. Habeeb:
Palestinian Journalist, Palestine Telegraph.
Gilad Atzmon:
Jazz artist and author.
Karl Sabbagh:
Writer, television producer and publisher.
This is promised to be the event of the year.
Don’t miss it.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Gilad Atzmon: Eye For An Eye

Osama bin Laden dead: body buried at seaMonday, May 2, 2011 at 11:15AM Gilad Atzmon

Please correct me if I am wrong...

Bin Laden is dead
The War on Terror is over
American and British soldiers will start to pack tonight and peace may prevail by the end of next week....
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Monday, May 2, 2011

Remi Kanazi: The Dos and Don'ts of Palestine – A Poem

Sunday, May 1, 2011 at 10:49PM Gilad Atzmon


don't call it genocide
we don't want to offend anyone
if we offend them
they'll never listen to us
we have to be reasonable

1,400 is just a number
no names
no death
we want peace and negotiations
don’t mention Zionism
if you mention Zionism
they’ll call you anti-Semitic
and people will believe them

don’t ever be angry
if you’re angry
they’ll call you angry
if they’re angry
everyone will call them
understandably emotional

we have to be pragmatic
pragmatism is not a euphemism
for concessions
although it may feel that way

don’t mention Allah or martyrs
it reminds them of Al Qaeda and 9/11
it’s not your job to fix their ignorance

don’t talk about refugees
boycott
or a one-state solution
if we want to win
we have to compromise
the road to peace is just ahead

don’t make analogies that include
the Holocaust, Nazis, or the Warsaw Ghetto
only Israelis are allowed to do this
when discussing wars on
Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran

don’t mention Yaffa, Haifa, Safad
or where your family is from
but if you do
nod when random people say they love Israel
it doesn’t matter where you came from
you can’t go back

don’t
just don’t
and that will lead to doing.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, April 29, 2011

No Cancellation !!!

Friday, April 29, 2011 at 3:00PM Gilad Atzmon
The London JC reported today that Westminster University cancelled anti Zionist event.

The event is not cancelled!!! We will be there and explore different aspects to do with Zionism, Jewishness and Israel. We will get to the bottom of it.

My internet stalker Tony Greenstein promised to organise a picket against the event together with his Jewish so called ‘anti Zionist’ friends. I really hope that they keep their promise.

Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel
Time: Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location: University Of Westminster - Cavendish Campus

A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.

Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon and others

Ghada Karmi’s Pullout Update
In case you missed it: Gilad Atzmon: Drama in London

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Ghada Karmi’s Pullout Update

Friday, April 29, 2011 at 9:29AM Gilad Atzmon

In spite of Jewish 'anti Zionists' bragging about themselves being the force behind Ghada Karmi's 'pullout' from a panel event with me this Tuesday,  Ghada just wrote to me and asked me to quote her. 

"I'm delayed here (in Jordan) and will not be back in time for the event, and that is the reason for my not attending."

I guess that Tony Greenstein and his Jewish political allies may want to consider  being  slightly more gentle with the Palestinians whom they claim to support.

It may as well be important to mention that John Rose also made it clear that he would attend a panel discussion with me anytime. His reason to pullout was due to a disagreement with organizers of the panel event regarding the title of the event.  I guess that he may have a point. Though, I am very happy with the title (Zionism, Jewishness and Israel), I agree that other panellists should have been consulted.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160038250722935

Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel
Time:            Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location: University Of Westminster - Cavendish Campus
A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.
Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon and others
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Bernard-Henri Lévy, “philosopher” and hypocrite

By Gilad Atzmon

29 April 2011

Readers following the progress of the Libyan uprising will have noticed that self-proclaimed “philosopher” Bernard-Henri Lévy claims to support the struggle of the Libyan people against the Gaddafi mafia.

But, as Gilad Atzmon demonstrates, the Frenchman is in fact a hypocrite and an apologist for Israeli racism and the suppression of Palestinian human rights.

What makes one a philosopher?

Probably, the capacity to aim at the essence of things, while celebrating the love of wisdom (philo-sophos).

Although Bernard-Henri Lévy presents himself as a French philosopher, he seems to lack that elementary capacity. Unlike a true philosopher, Levy engages in an endless spin, typical of a hasbara – Israeli propaganda – agent.

On 2 February the Huffington Post gave a platform to the so-called “philosopher” Levy.

Levy doesn’t approve of the Boycott, Disinventment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. He claims that the campaign is “anti-democratic”.

Levy the Israeli propagandist

I would have expected Levy eloquently to advocate freedom of speech and human rights, but the Zionist “intellectual” failed miserably. Levy followed the well-trodden Judaeo-centric Zionist template and spouted half-baked ideas that hardly form an argument. Pathetically, Levy’s ranting is mostly counter-productive to his own cause.

“First of all” he said, “one boycotts totalitarian regimes, not democracies... One can boycott Sudan, guilty of the extermination of part of the population of Darfur. One can boycott China, guilty of massive violations of human rights in Tibet and elsewhere. “

Bernard-Henri Lévy, Israeli propagandist

For some bizarre reason, Levy seems to be convinced that his beloved Jews-only state is an “exemplary democracy”. He says: “One does not boycott the only society in the Middle East where Arabs read a free press, demonstrate when they wish to do so, send freely-elected representatives to parliament and enjoy their rights as citizens.”

I guess that Levy either doesn’t know or pretends not to know that in the “Jews-only democracy” laws are racially orientated. The Law of Return, for instance, favours Jews and Jews only.

Levy should also learn about the case of Azmi Bishara, the Arab citizen of Israel and member of the Israeli parliament, who had to run for his life for suggesting that Israel should be transformed into a “state of all its citizens” based on equality for all.

But it actually goes much further.

Levy’s argument is totally flawed and counterproductive to his Zionist cause. It is actually democracies, rather than dictatorships, that should be subjected to humanitarian boycotts because in democracies the people are complicit in their governments’ crimes.

We must boycott Israel because in the Jewish state every citizen is culpable in the war crimes committed by the democratically-elected government. We must boycott Israel because 94 per cent of its Jewish population supported the Israeli armed forces’ genocidal tactics during Operation Cast Lead against the people of Gaza. We must boycott Israel because its state-terror policies are a reflection of the public’s true will as proven in opinion polls and democratic elections.

According to Levy, in a democracy the voters have the power to sanction, modify and reverse the position of their government. It would be fabulous if Levy could enlighten us and suggest how exactly the Jews-only democracy is progressing towards an acceptance of universal rights for all.

Apologist for racism

As with all hasbara agents, Levy is outraged by the attempt to delegitimize Israel, yet, the philosopher in him fails to tell us what is exactly so wrong in delegitimizing a racially-driven, murderous collective. I also wonder what is so unacceptable about delegitimizing a state that was illegitimate to start with.

Levy doesn’t approve of the “one-state” enthusiasts. He far prefers to divide the land into two states. Someone had better remind this lame mind that Israel is currently one state that is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Those who support one state are actually far from being radical. They have their feet on the ground. They accept Israel as one state, with one international dialling code, one power grid and one sewage system.

However, the supporters of one state also realize that one-state Israel is dominated by Jewish Talmudic racism that is far more vicious than Nazi ideology. Proponents of the one state also realize that by the time Jewish racist ideology is defeated this one state between the river and the sea will become Palestine.

Levy is furious with one-state advocate Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, who, according to him, “does not hesitate to compare Israel to Nazi Germany”. It would be a little bit more useful if “philosopher” Levy is kind enough to suggest to us once and for all what is so wrong with comparing the Jews-only state with the Aryans-only state also known as Nazi Germany.

Towards the end of his Huffington Post article, Levy comes up with something that could almost pass for an argument. For Levy, the Western world should have hoped to be “cured of its worst criminal past”. It would be helpful and productive if Levy and other Zionists grasp that it is actually the West’s problematic past that shapes our criticism of the murderous Israeli present. It is our troubled past that makes us into enemies of racist Israel.

I was looking forward to read a Zionist “thinker” advocating for Israel. Levy obviously failed.

However, I admit that, as with Levy, I also have reservations regarding the BDS movement.

For instance, I believe that if the demand to boycott Israeli academics is valid, then we should also boycott academics and intellectuals who advocate Israeli policies and Zionism worldwide, because Israel is racist to the bone and racism must be opposed. If the BDS movement is taking itself seriously, then it should also demand the boycott Levy, Alan Dershowitz, David Hirsh and many others.

On the one hand, this would underline the BDS movement’s integrity. But as an advocate of freedom of speech, I actually want Dershowitz, Hirsh and Levy to speak their minds. I believe that together with Mark Regev, they are the best promoters of Zionist tribal morbidity.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Gilad Atzmon: Drama in London

Thursday Apr282011


A panel discussion titled ‘Zionism, Jewishness and Israel’ will take place at The University of Westminster - Cavendish Campus on Tuesday May the 3rd, from 6:30pm - 8:00pm.
As one may imagine, the Zionist operators in Britain are not happy about the meeting at all: 'Green Engage', a Zionist anti-BDS campaign group launched an immediate campaign, soon after the announcement of the panel. Far from being surprising, within hours, they were joined by Tony Greenstein and the so called Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network.

The original panel was supposed to include John Rose, Ghada Karmi, Alan Hart and myself.

The venue as well as the panelists (except myself funnily enough) came under severe pressure that verged on abuse: one of the panelists admitted to the organisers that he had received twelve phone calls from different Jewish ‘anti-Zionist’ activists, who insisted that -- ‘for the sake of Palestine’-- no one should share a stage with Gilad Atzmon.

Now, interestingly enough, when I asked the panelist whether any Palestinians had actually called to preach for the ‘sake of Palestine’ -- the answer was a resounding negative. I guess that Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ know better than everyone what is good for Palestine, they are chosen after all.

John Rose and Ghada Karmi pulled out, and that is understandable: not many can endure such a level of abuse – as we learnt recently, Judge Goldstone has also surrendered, and by doing so, has severely damaged his credibility and reputation.

In the early days I myself struggled a lot: on a daily basis I would hear from one ‘progressive’ Jew or another who I should like and who I should hate. Being a rebel, I never followed any of these ‘instructions’. It took me years to develop a very thick skin, to believe in myself and to believe in ethical thinking. And, having done so, I am now happier and free, and I continue in the spirit of humanism and resistance.

Resisting Zionist tactics then, the organisers of the event and the venue are undeterred, standing strong, and determined to continue with the original plan: a list of Palestinian intellectuals and journalists stepped immediately in place of Ghada and John. I advised the organisers not to publish their names for the time being, simply to save them from the unnecessary irritation, annoyance and abuse. However, I myself made sure that they are fully aware of the possible trouble ahead.

This event is promising to be a turning point -- The relentless attempts by Jewish political bodies to gate-keep the discourse needs to be confronted and exposed.

And I guess that what we see here proves beyond doubt my arguments regarding the duplicity that is tragically manifested all too often by different bodies and individuals within the Jewish ‘anti-Zionist’ network.

Come and support freedom and intellectual exchange

Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel
Time: Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location: University Of Westminster - Cavendish Campus
A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.
Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon and others
(Facebook event Announcement)

"Despite the huge pressures from certain Zionist and "anti-zionist" groups, John Rose and Ghada Karmi have pulled but have been replaced with a number of other high profile and brilliant speakers.

A lot of criticism has been mounted about the fact that the event is putting "Jewishness" into the debate with Zionism and Israel. The fact that Israel calls itself the "Jewish State" warrants that we as rational, critical individuals must at least enquire and question what this may mean.

This is not anti-semitic nor racist, and in fact every religion has been subject to these criticisms and enquiries, and in a truly democratic society, any exclusive belief that posits itself as the truth must be scrutinised and put under the spotlight."

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Gilad Atzmon: Time Is Ripe For A Paradigm Shift

It is slightly embarrassing for me to admit that sometime Zionists are actually well ahead of our favourite intellectuals in understanding the depth of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is not that they are more clever, they are just free to explore the conflict without being subject to the tyranny of ‘political correctness’, also being proud nationalist Jews- they do not need the approval of the Jewish left thought police.

I have recently come across a short Haaretz article by Israeli writer A.B. Yehoshua*.

Yehoshua is a proud Zionist, He believes in the right of his people to dwell on Palestinian land. He is also convinced that the Jewish state is the true meaning of contemporary Jewish life.

I guess that Yehoshua loves himself almost as much as I despise everything he stands for and yet, I have to confess, he seems to grasp the depth of the Israeli Palestinian conflict’s parameters slightly better than most solidarity activists I can think of.

In his Haaretz article Yehoshua stressed that Zionism was “something original and one of its kind in human history- A folk arrived at the homeland of another folk attempting to replace the old identity with a new/old identity”. Yehoshua also counters the faulty colonial paradigm and practically repeats my own theses almost word by word. “There was also no (Zionist) attempt to impose a colonial regime, since the Jews had no (mother) state that could have sent them to perform a colonial conquests like in the case of England or France.”



Yehoshua, is certainly correct here, as much as some amongst us are contend to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically. The Colonial paradigm is simply a fantasy that is clumsily imposed on our discourse in a desperate attempt to make the Israeli/Palestinian conflict meaningful within a decaying Marxist discourse.

Yehoshua continues, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will not be resolved because it's a totally unique conflict in human history. “There is no historical precedence for a nation that decides to return to its ancient homeland and establish its sovereignty there.” Whether the conflict will be resolved or not is indeed a crucial question. I am not so sure that Yehoshua knows the answer or even can contemplate a reality in which the Jewish State belongs to the past. However, Yehoshua is obviously correct in his reading of the uniqueness of the Zionist history. We are dealing here with an exceptional and unprecedented national aspiration driving by racist impetus. But Yehoshua takes it further. “Thus,” he says, If we all accept that the modern return of Jews to Zion is a unique event in human history – then the Palestinian people, unlike any other people, had to face a totally unique phenomenon.” If we accept that Zionism is an abnormal political ideology and practice, then, Palestinian nationalism (that is defined by negation to abnormality) must be also a unique to say the least.

I must admit that Yehoshua’s stand is well argued and totally valid. However, it means that all comparative models such as the colonial paradigm are doomed to crash. Jewish nationalism doesn’t fit into any available template, it formulates a model of its own.

According to Yehoshua, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not really about territorial issues. “Territorial issues can be resolved” he says. “In our conflict, both sides, struggle over national identity of the whole country.” Yehoshua offers here a very interesting insight that cannot be uttered within the boundaries of the Left discourse. For both parties, especially the Palestinians, he says, “it is unclear what is the size of the people it is up against, is it only the Israelis or is it also the Jewish Diaspora as a whole.” Yehoshua raises here an issue I myself have been stressing for years. It is far from being clear to anyone (including Israelis and Jews) where Israel ends and the Diaspora starts. It is also far from being clear where the Israeli ends and the Jew starts. I guess that for most contemporary Jews it is even far from being clear anymore where Zionism ends and Judaism starts. In the contemporary Jewish world there are no clear dichotomies. We are dealing with a spineless elastic metamorphic identity that shapes itself to fit every possible circumstances. This may explain how come the Jewish state can dually operate as an oppressor and a victim simultaneously.

The Israelis, according to Yehoshua are also subject to a similar confusion. They also cannot figure out whether it is just the Palestinian people they are up against or is it the whole Arab nation or even the entire Muslim world. For Yehoshua, the conflict “lacks a clear demographic boundaries. This fact alone creates an initial deep distrust between the two peoples that prevents a possible solution.”

Yeshoua is far from being a brilliant mind, yet, he manages to analyse the conflict correctly just because he is free to think out of the Leftist box. Being a proud Israeli Jew he is free to say what he thinks without the need to appease half a dozen so-called ‘progressive’ Jews. Yehoshua’s analysis makes a lot of sense to me though we draw the complete opposite conclusions. I believe that the Palestinian solidarity discourse better liberate itself of any form of dogmatic political thinking. It is about time and look at the conflict for what it is. We must engage in a true plural debate and emancipate ourselves of any traces of rigid and anachronistic thinking.

* The article has now disappeared from Haaretz site. You can upload an Hebrew version here.
The English version just appeared here.
++++++++++++++++++

In case you missed it: Truth in Stuttgart

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Young Arab Jews open letter to Arab peers

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 10:08AM Gilad Atzmon
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:
In spite of being the majority amongst the Israeli Jewish population, Arab Jews are heavily discriminated in Israel, both culturally and economically. Due to Zio-centric pressure and Euro-centric culture, Arab Jews have been reluctant to openly explore their heritage. Needless to mention that Arab military defeats didn’t help either, for decades Arab Jews in Israel have tended to hide their Arabic past.  For the obvious reasons Arab Jews in Israel have been found at the forefront of every possible political form of negation towards Palestinians and Arabs in general. They clearly wanted to disassociate themselves from their Arab past through blind identification with Zionist ideology and Israeli militancy.
Things, however, may change these days. Following the regional Intifada and the rise of Arab masses, young Arab Jews in Israel are becoming aware of their true origin and their culture. The following is an open letter to Arab peers written by Young Israeli Arab Jews- young people who come to realise who they are, where they come from and what they stand for.
“We Identify with you,” they confess to their Arab young neighbours. They relocate themselves within a new geo-political vision.  “We are a part of the religious, cultural, and linguistic history of the Middle East and North Africa.” They see Israel for what it is, “we, too, live in a regime that in reality—despite its pretensions to being ‘enlightened’ and ‘democratic’—does not represent large sections of its actual population in the Occupied Territories and inside of the Green Line border(s).”
However the young Arab Jews seem to come short of accepting the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian Right of Return. Though they advocate solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian citizens of Israel, they are yet to support or acknowledge the rights of Palestinian refugees. Like the Israeli ‘Left’, the young Arab Jews are willing to support the Palestinians as long as they stay behind the wall. We support the  “struggle of the Palestinian people living under Israeli military occupation...in their demand to end the occupation and to gain Palestinian national independence.”
This is not a lot but it is certainly more than nothing.

Young Mizrahi Israelis’ open letter to Arab peers


Translated from Hebrew;  English edited by Chana Morgenstern | Arabic version here

In a letter titled “Ruh Jedida: A New Spirit for 2011,” young Jewish descendants of the Arab and Islamic world living in Israel write to their peers in the Middle East and North Africa

We, as the descendents of the Jewish communities of the Arab and Muslim world, the Middle East and the Maghreb, and as the second and third generation of Mizrahi Jews in Israel, are watching with great excitement and curiosity the major role that the men and women of our generation are playing so courageously in the demonstrations for freedom and change across the Arab world. We identify with you and are extremely hopeful for the future of the revolutions that have already succeeded in Tunisia and Egypt. We are equally pained and worried at the great loss of life in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, and many other places in the region.
Our generation’s protest against repression and oppressive and abusive regimes, and its call for change, freedom, and the establishment of democratic governments that foster citizen participation in the political process, marks a dramatic moment in the history of the Middle East and North Africa, a region which has for generations been torn between various forces, internal and external, and whose leaders have often trampled the political, economic, and cultural rights of its citizens.
We are Israelis, the children and grandchildren of Jews who lived in the Middle East and North Africa for hundreds and thousands of years. Our forefathers and mothers contributed to the development of this region’s culture, and were part and parcel of it. Thus the culture of the Islamic world and the multigenerational connection and identification with this region is an inseparable part of our own identity.
We are a part of the religious, cultural, and linguistic history of the Middle East and North Africa, although it seems that we are the forgotten children of its history: First in Israel, which imagines itself and its culture to be somewhere between continental Europe and North America. Then in the Arab world, which often accepts the dichotomy of Jews and Arabs and the imagined view of all Jews as Europeans, and has preferred to repress the history of the Arab-Jews as a minor or even nonexistent chapter in its history; and finally within the Mizrahi communities themselves, who in the wake of Western colonialism, Jewish nationalism and Arab nationalism, became ashamed of their past in the Arab world.

Consequently we often tried to blend into the mainstream of society while erasing or minimizing our own past. The mutual influences and relationships between Jewish and Arab cultures were subjected to forceful attempts at erasure in recent generations, but evidence of them can still be found in many spheres of our lives, including music, prayer, language, and literature.
We wish to express our identification with and hopes for this stage of generational transition in the history of the Middle East and North Africa, and we hope that it will open the gates to freedom and justice and a fair distribution of the region’s resources.

We turn to you, our generational peers in the Arab and Muslim world, striving for an honest dialog which will include us in the history and culture of the region. We looked enviously at the pictures from Tunisia and from Al-Tahrir square, admiring your ability to bring forth and organize a nonviolent civil resistance that has brought hundreds of thousands of people out into the streets and the squares, and finally forced your rulers to step down.
We, too, live in a regime that in reality—despite its pretensions to being “enlightened” and “democratic”—does not represent large sections of its actual population in the Occupied Territories and inside of the Green Line border(s). This regime tramples the economic and social rights of most of its citizens, is in an ongoing process of minimizing democratic liberties, and constructs racist barriers against Arab-Jews, the Arab people, and Arabic culture. Unlike the citizens of Tunisia and Egypt, we are still a long way from the capacity to build the kind of solidarity between various groups that we see in these countries, a solidarity movement that would allow us to unite and march together–all who reside here–into the public squares, to demand a civil regime that is culturally, socially, and economically just and inclusive.
We believe that, as Mizrahi Jews in Israel, our struggle for economic, social, and cultural rights rests on the understanding that political change cannot depend on the Western powers who have exploited our region and its residents for many generations. True change can only come from an intra-regional and inter-religious dialog that is in connection with the different struggles and movements currently active in the Arab world. Specifically, we must be in dialog and solidarity with struggles of the Palestinians citizens of Israel who are fighting for equal political and economic rights and for the termination of racist laws, and the struggle of the Palestinian people living under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank and in Gaza in their demand to end the occupation and to gain Palestinian national independence.

In our previous letter written following Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, we called for the rise of the democratic Middle Eastern identity and for our inclusion in such an identity. We now express the hope that our generation – throughout the Arab, Muslim, and Jewish world – will be a generation of renewed bridges that will leap over the walls and hostility created by previous generations and will renew the deep human dialog without which we cannot understand ourselves: between Jews, Sunnis, Shias, and Christians, between Kurds, Berbers, Turks, and Persians, between Mizrahis and Ashkenazis, and between Palestinians and Israelis. We draw on our shared past in order to look forward hopefully towards a shared future.
We have faith in intra-regional dialog—whose purpose is to repair and rehabilitate what was destroyed in recent generations—as a catalyst towards renewing the Andalusian model of Muslim-Jewish-Christian partnership, God willing, Insha’Allah, and as a pathway to a cultural and historical golden era for our countries. This golden era cannot come to pass without equal, democratic citizenship, equal distribution of resources, opportunities, and education, equality between women and men, and the acceptance of all people regardless of faith, race, status, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic affiliation. All of these rights play equal parts in constructing the new society to which we aspire. We are committed to achieving these goals within a process of dialog between all of the people of Middle East and North Africa, as well as a dialog we will undertake with different Jewish communities in Israel and around the world.

We, the undersigned:

Shva Salhoov (Libya), Naama Gershy (Serbia, Yemen), Yael Ben-Yefet (Iraq, Aden), Leah Aini (Greece, Turkey), Yael Berda (Tunisia), Aharon Shem-Tov (Iraq, Iranian Kurdistan), Yosi Ohana (born in Morocco), Yali Hashash (Libya, Yemen), Yonit Naaman (Yemen, Turkey), Orly Noy (born in Iran), Gadi Alghazi (Yugoslavia, Egypt), Mati Shemoelof (Iran, Iraq, Syria), Eliana Almog (Yemen, Germany), Yuval Evri ((Iraq), Ophir Tubul (Morocco, Algeria), Moti Gigi (Morocco), Shlomit Lir (Iran), Ezra Nawi (Iraq), Hedva Eyal (Iran), Eyal Ben-Moshe (Yemen), Shlomit Binyamin (Cuba, Syria, Turkey), Yael Israel (Turkey, Iran), Benny Nuriely (Tunisia), Ariel Galili (Iran), Natalie Ohana Evry (Morocco, Britain), Itamar Toby Taharlev (Morocco, Jerusalem, Egypt), Ofer Namimi (Iraq, Morocco), Amir Banbaji (Syria), Naftali Shem-Tov (Iraq, Iranian Kurdistan), Mois Benarroch (born in Morocco), Yosi David (Tunisia Iran), Shalom Zarbib (Algeria), Yardena Hamo (Iraqi Kurdistan), Aviv Deri (Morocco) Menny Aka (Iraq), Tom Fogel (Yemen, Poland), Eran Efrati (Iraq), Dan Weksler Daniel (Syria, Poland, Ukraine), Yael Gidnian (Iran), Elyakim Nitzani (Lebanon, Iran, Italy), Shelly Horesh-Segel (Morocco), Yoni Mizrahi (Kurdistan), Betty Benbenishti (Turkey), Chen Misgav (Iraq, Poland), Moshe Balmas (Morocco), Tom Cohen (Iraq, Poland, England), Ofir Itah (Morocco), Shirley Karavani (Tunisia, Libya, Yemen), Lorena Atrakzy (Argentina, Iraq), Asaf Abutbul (Poland, Russia, Morocco), Avi Yehudai (Iran), Diana Ahdut (Iran, Jerusalem), Maya Peretz (Nicaragua, Morocco), Yariv Moher (Morocco, Germany), Tami Katzbian (Iran), Oshra Lerer (Iraq, Morocco), Nitzan Manjam (Yemen, Germany, Finland), Rivka Gilad (Iran, Iraq, India), Oshrat Rotem (Morocco), Naava Mashiah (Iraq), Zamira Ron David (Iraq) Omer Avital (Morocco, Yemen), Vered Madar (Yemen), Ziva Atar (Morocco), Yossi Alfi (born in Iraq), Amira Hess (born in Iraq), Navit Barel (Libya), Almog Behar (Iraq, Turkey, Germany)

Watch an amazing film exploring Arab Jewish culture in Israel

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Gilad Atzmon: "Tribal Marxism for Dummies"

Sunday, April 24, 2011 at 8:29AM Gilad Atzmon


This is an old paper of mine it was published originally on PTT (June 2009). I re-post it following the disappearance of PTT and its Archive.


"The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this “we know better” attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior."
Hisham Bustani


“The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise. While it poses a challenge to Western domination, it is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.”
Moshe Machover June 2009

For very many years the Palestinian solidarity discourse was dominated by leftist ideology carried largely by Jewish Marxists. Though the support of Jewish leftists was rather important at an early stage, it lost its primacy and urgency as Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian solidarity discourse evolved into a vivid autonomous discourse based on widely accepted ethical grounds. The Israeli war crimes against Palestinians are now well documented. No one needs the odd kosher ‘righteous Jew’ to approve that this is indeed the case.
And yet, in spite of the clear fact that Palestinian solidarity discourse moved ahead, Jewish Marxists are still insisting upon dictating their tribally orientated pseudo-analytical vision of reality.

Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power.

Palestinian thinkers were probably the first to realise that the situation in Gaza, Nablus and the refugee camps had little in common with 19th century Europe. This was enough to defy Marxism as a sole analytical political tool. However, the Jewish Marxists had a far more adventurous plan for Palestinians, Arab people and the region in general. They wanted Arabs to become cosmopolitan atheists. They suggested that Arabs should drop ‘reactionary Islam’ and liberate themselves as ‘the Jews did’ a century ago.

Seemingly, Palestinian and Arab intellectuals grasped that the method that successfully transformed Russia into a Soviet Union, at the expense of millions, was not going to liberate them. They obviously realised that the Jewish Marxists did not intend upon bringing millions of Palestinian refugees home either. It wasn’t even set to launch any form of an adequate resistance. It was there to saturate the discourse with empty rhetoric and pseudo-analytical jargon in order to divert the attention from questions having to do with Jewish tribal politics and Jewish identity.

As interesting as it may be, it is actually the Jewish Marxists, those who support Palestinians as long as they drop Islam, who are the ultimate exemplary exponents of Jewish tribal politics. It is the Jewish Marxist rather than the 'Zionist’ who exposes the Jewish political ugly attitude in its worst crude form. This is good enough reason to monitor the Jewish Left and to understand its philosophy. As we will see soon enough, Jewish Marxism is there to suppress any form of engagement with the Jewish question by means of spin. It is there to stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying. The Judeo Marxist is an imposter prophet who claims to know the answers and yet, for some reason, his reading of historical events is no less than a total catastrophe. None of his predictions stand the reality test.

One of the last prime exponents of Judeo Marxist ideology is Professor Moshe Machover. Machover was born in Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, he moved to Britain in 1968. He was a founder of Matzpen, a miniature Socialist organisation in 1962.

Machover’s reading of Zionism is pretty trivial. ‘Israel’, he says, is a ‘settler state’. For Machover this is a necessary point of departure because it sets Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.

However, as much as Machover is desperate to divert the attention away from the Jewish question, Jewish tribal politics and the Jewish identity, his entire premise can be demolished in a one simple move. If Israel is a ‘settler state’ as he says, one may wonder, 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. The Boston Tea Party may ring a bell. However, 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. The lack of material Jewish motherland leads to the immediate collapse of Machover’s colonial argument.

Moreover, native Hebraic Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to any motherland except their own state. As an ex-Israeli, I can testify that neither my parents nor myself or any of my fellow expatriates have ever been aware of our ties to any other (mother) state except Israel. Accordingly, it may be true that Zionism carries some colonial elements and yet, it is not a colonial project per se, for no one can present a material correspondence between Jewish ‘motherland’ and a Jewish ‘settler state’. The Jewish national project is unique in history and as it seems it doesn’t fit into any Marxist materialist explanation.
We are therefore entitled to assume that Machover’s ‘settler state’ is just another Judeo Marxist spin that is there to divert the attention from the clear fact that Israel is the Jewish state. In order to understand Israel’s unique condition we must ask, “who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness?” In fact answering these questions will help us understand why Machover and other Jewish Marxists invest so much effort producing all those spinning lines. As interesting as it may sound, Machover’s alteration of Marx’s ideology is very similar to the Zionist distortion of the Old Testament.

Machover’s recent publication is a pompous lengthy talk delivered in November 2006 at the Brunei Gallery Lecture Theater (SOAS). For some reason it was published this month by the ‘International Socialist Review’ (ISR).

Considering the embarrassing fact that none of Machover’s prophetic predictions ever stood the reality test, the publication of such an embarrassing paper raises serious concerns regarding the editors of the ISR’s understanding of world current affairs. It would be very interesting to learn from the ISR whether they approve Machover’s suggestion that Islam “is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” It may also be important to make sure that every Muslim on this planet grasps that an Elder Jew Marxist from London is convinced that they should throw away their Qur’an.

I may as well mention that here in Britain and in some other European countries more than just a few people are concerned with the latest rise of nationalism. Shockingly enough, comparing Machover’s pretentious and supremacist take on Islam with rightwing nationalists reveals a very amusing fact. As it happens, Machover, the supremacist tribal Jew, has managed to locate himself on the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. While Griffin is kind enough to offer ‘foreigners’ £50,000 to go back to their ‘homeland’, our Kosher Marxist Machover is set to rob the indigenous of his belief on his land. Griffin would not be able to get away saying about Islam that it is 'backward looking'. This is hardly surprising, while Griffin has to meet a vast opposition, Machover would have very little opposition within the left. One reason is obviously due to the fact that Machover and his three Jewish supporters are unnoticeable. Another reason may be that racism and supremacy is, unfortunately, a Jews only territory. As we can see Machover is getting away with it. Hopefully, this will change soon.

Machover launches his 2006 talk raising an interesting question: “How should we think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

One may notice that Machover uses the word ‘should’ and ‘we’. This form of speech suggests that the elder may possess the right answers within his intellectual arsenal. Following the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Machover declares with confidence “We must be clear as to how the issue ought to be approached.”
I may admit that when a Jewish marginal Marxist voice utilises the “we”, ”should” and the “ought”, my red alert light turns on. I recently read about some Bolsheviks who held similar ideas to Machover’s did to Ukrainians peasants in the name of just another “we”.

Machover dares to come with a pretence of an analytical argumentation that will produce a concept of resolution. “Understanding,” he says, “ought to precede judgment.” Someone should remind the Hebraic ‘prophet’, who probably failed to read a single philosophical text in the last 50 years, that ‘understanding’ is itself subject to prior ‘understandings’ and ‘judgments’. In fact Machover’s own systematic failure to understand the power of Islam and Arab resistance is in itself due to his own prior understandings and some severe Judeo Marxist indoctrination.

It would take Machover many thousands of words of pseudo-analytical text before he outlines his vision of ‘Resolution—principles and preconditions’.

“Above all,” he says, “pressure must be applied on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.” “Equal rights”, he affirms are “essential elements that a lasting resolution must embody”. This is quite an astonishing insight from a man who claims to understand the conflict. In spite of his ‘analytical research’ Machover somehow failed to realise that the Jewish state is not going to willingly approve any form of equality, for Jewish political ideology does not succumb to the belief in human equality.

“The right of return,” he continues, is the “ recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, to be rehabilitated and properly compensated for loss of property and livelihood.”
This is indeed beautiful and correct and yet, Machover fails to tell us what is going to lead the Israeli Jews to give away their little ‘Jews only state’.

Machover eventually comes with a very simple resolution. “The third and most fundamental element in a genuine resolution is removal of the fundamental cause of the conflict: the Zionist colonisation project must be superseded.” I may stress at this point that Moshe Machover is not one of my satirical fictional characters. He is real and he even has at least 3 Jewish Marxist followers. The crucial question here is how these 4 Judeo Marxists are going to sell this reasonable idea to the Israeli Jews?

Like other deluded solidarity campaigners who fail to realise that the Palestinian future will be determined by ‘facts on the ground’, Machover engages himself in the one state/two state academic resolution discourse. “For a two-state setup to satisfy them, Israel would have to be de-Zionized: transformed from an ethnocratic settler state into a democratic state of all its inhabitants.” For some reason, Machover, who doesn’t even live in Israel, believes that he can tell the Israelis in what kind of country they should live in. “On the other hand, a single state would have to be not merely democratic (and hence secular) but have a constitutional structure that recognizes the two national groups and gives them equal national rights and status.” Once again the Elder Jew Marxist, the embodiment of the ultimate possible marginal voice, is telling the Palestinians and the Israelis that if they want to live together they better be secular. One should admit by now, it indeed takes some chutzpah to be a Judeo Marxist.

After 22 pages of Marxist self-indulgence on the verge of verbal masturbation, the man himself comes with the necessary goods. He admits that he was wasting the time of his listeners.
“Indeed, no genuine resolution is possible in the short or medium term, because of the enormous disparity in the balance of power.”

So in case you happen to wonder what may bring a change. Here it is. ‘Moishe of Arabia’ has two answers to offer. “First, decline in American global dominance” as if Israel is bound to crash with its current allies. As Machover knows, Jews changed their allies rather often in the last century.

“Second,” he continues “a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab East, leading to a degree of unification of the Arab nation—most likely in the form of regional federation.” Seemingly, the archaic Marxist fails to gather the most obvious evolving story, the Arab nation is largely Islam. Arab people are becoming more and more united around their love of Allah and the notion of Ummah. As far as reality is concerned, Islam is the rising force, whether our four Judeo Marxists like it or not.stunning win in the first Palestinian parliamentary election which it has taken part in. Would elections take place in the PA today, the Hamas victory would even be greater. Considering the fact that Islam is the only successful resistance force against Western colonialism and the Zionist war machine, the fact that ISR published Machover’s Judeo-centric intellectually lame analysis is there to prove that the time may be ripe for Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip. In 1884, in his invaluable paper ‘On The Jewish Question’ Marx argued that for the world to emancipate itself of capitalism, it should liberate itself of the secular Jew[1]. I do not know much about people liberating themselves. I would narrow it down and argue that for Marxist and socialists to liberate their discourse in accordance with their master mentor, they may have to consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators.

As we saw before, in terms of tolerance and ethics, Machover positioned himself to the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. In terms of political pragmatism, he is to the right of Shimon Peres and his ‘New Middle East’. Machover has his own plans for a New Middle East. He is going to unite them all and throw their Qur’an away.

By now we are really accustomed to the fact that Machover doesn’t like Islam. “The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promiseNor can it possibly be a uniting force: on the contrary, it is deeply divisive as between Sunnis and Shias, and has no attraction whatsoever for non-Muslim and secular Arabs (including Palestinians), let alone Hebrews.”

Interestingly enough, Moishe of Arabia comes with these embarrassing lines in November 2006, just 5 months after the Shi'a Hezbollah gave a signal of support to its Sunni brothers in Gaza, reminding Israel that they were just to the north, and wide awake, serving the Israeli army with a humiliating defeat. The Marxist elder comedian gave his 2006 talk less than a year after Hamas has scored a

In fact, many Socialists and Marxists do, especially out of the Anglo-American world. However, those Marxist and Socialists who keep spreading anti-Islam views better just join the Jewish Lobby, Wolfowitz and the Neocons, the NJF They better do it because this is where they belong.

[1]“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Karl Marx On The Jewish Question, 1844
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Friday, April 22, 2011

Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 9:51PM Gilad Atzmon

A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.
Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Location:  University Of Westminster - Cavendish Campus
115 New Cavendish Street
London
W1W 6UW
Speakers include:
Ghada Karmi
John Rose
Gilad Atzmon
Alan Hart
Enquiries Contact:  07934 263 023
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian