Kamel Hawwash: Trump’s Deal of the Century, A Mirage Already Rejected by Palestinians

Mon May 06, 2019 9:12

Kamel Hawwash: Trump’s Deal of the Century, A Mirage Already Rejected by Palestinians

TEHRAN (FNA)- Academic and activist Kamel Hawwash believes that Trump administration is “naïve” to think that Palestinians would accept his so-called Deal of the Century to end their struggle in return for “economic prosperity”.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with FNA, Kamel Hawwash shared his opinion with us that the status of the holy city of Jerusalem al-Quds and the issue of the Palestinian refugees are key issues that Trump administration has tried to take off the negotiation’s table.

According to the Palestinian academic, “Israel is the child of racist ideology of Zionism” which has been designed to “put the interests of the Jewish Zionists ahead of all others, including the indigenous Palestinians”.

Kamel Hawwash is a British-Palestinian engineering professor based at the University of Birmingham. Hawwash is a longstanding campaigner for justice, especially for the Palestinian people. He is the Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and a founding member of the British Palestinian Policy Council (BPPC).

FNA has conducted an interview with Kamel Hawwash about Israel’s brutal crackdown on Palestinian protesters, the Israeli legislation known as the nation state law and also Trump’s so-called deal of the century.

Below you will find the full text of the interview.

Q: It seems that killing scores of people and maiming thousands more over the past several months aren’t an indication of what Israel thinks is enough to keep Gaza in check. Do you think Israel’s deadly clamp down on Palestinian protesters is going to end anytime soon?

A: Ever since its inception in 1948 through violence and terror, Israel has treated the indigenous Palestinians as a lesser people than Jewish Israelis. It has systematically denied all the basic rights expected by any other people. This includes the right to self-determination and the right for Palestinian refugees, expelled in 1948 to return to their homes. Since March 2018, Palestinians in Gaza have been marching peacefully to demand a lifting of the illegal and immoral siege on the beleaguered strip and to be allowed to return peacefully to their homes. Instead of meeting their peaceful and legitimate demands, Israel met their protests with deadly fire, deploying tens of snipers that shoot to kill, sometimes at distances of hundreds of meters. Among the over 200 dead have been children, journalists and medics. There are no signs that the Great March of return will end soon or that Israel will stop attacking protesters at the Gaza fence.

Q: What do you think the protests known as the ‘Great March of Return’ have accomplished so far?

A: The protests have highlighted the plight of Palestinians in Gaza but also the unjust situation all Palestinians find themselves in, nearly 72 years after their dispossession and expulsion. The GMR has also shown the world that Palestinians are resilient. They will not give up on their cause, no matter what Israel and its allies do. On the same day as the United States opened its new Embassy in Jerusalem, against all international understandings and before the ‘deal of the century’ was announced, Palestinians marched to the Gaza fence in their tens of thousands. The murder by Israel of over 60 Palestinians has not broken them. Nine months after the start of the march, they continue to protest. The GMR has also shown the world that Palestinians across all political factions can come together to face the common enemy Israel, putting aside their differences. Israel’s violent response has exposed the brutality of the extremist regime governing what many see as a rogue state.

Q: How do you think the US and some Arab states are complicit in crimes against the Palestinians especially in light of the discreet links between Israel and Saudi Arabia and some other Persian Gulf states?

A: The US funds Israel to the tune of over $3 billion per annum. It also provides Israel with a de facto veto at the UN Security Council, shielding it from accountability. It also provides it with cover for its crimes against the Palestinians, claiming it is entitled to self-defense. As an occupying power, it is not entitled to self-defense. In fact, it is obligated to protect the people it occupies and to refrain from committing crimes against them including land theft and moving its civilians into these occupied areas.

Arab states have not acted in the best interests of the Palestinian people, and some have embarked on steps to normalize relations with what is effectively an Apartheid state that occupies Arab people. Not only have Israeli sports teams performed in [Persian] Gulf States, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently visited Oman, followed closely by other minster visiting Oman and the UAE.

Q: In July 2018, the so-called nation state law was adopted by Israeli Knesset. What do you think the legislation shows about the nature of the regime in Tel Aviv?

A: Israel is the child of racist ideology of Zionism. It was never designed to be anything but a state that put the interests of Jewish Zionists ahead of all others, including the indigenous Palestinians. Its policies discriminate against Palestinians, whether in Gaza, East Jerusalem or the rest of the West Bank. It also discriminates against the Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, while providing a facade that claims that it is a democracy for all. The adoption of the nation state law in July entrenches its racism and articulates its own form of Apartheid. It gives the right of self-determination only to Jews, provides every Jew around the world with a right to emigrate to it but denies the right of return to Palestinian refugees. It also sees the building and expansion of settlements as a national value. With this law, Israel basically challenged the world, saying ‘I am an apartheid state, what are you going to do about it’? The world has been silent, thus providing it with a continuation of the impunity it has enjoyed.

Q: Many believe that the continuing illegal Israeli settlement activities have hammered nail after nail into the coffin of a diplomatic solution. What do you think about that?

A: Anyone who visits the occupied territories comes away questioning whether Israel has any interest in peace based on international law. Most countries believe this will come through a two state solution. However, as the number of settlers moves onwards a million and hundreds of settlements are developed connected with settler only roads and with the Apartheid Wall built deep into the occupied territories, the ‘facts on the ground’ Israel is creating have ended any prospects of a two-state solution that would meet the basic needs of Palestinians whose leadership accepted a state on 22% of their historic homeland. That is not only damaging for the prospects of peace, it also places all the countries that continue to hold out for a two-state in difficulty as they have no alternative to that. However, calls for one democratic state for all inhabitants of historic Palestine appear to be increasing.

Q: The current administration in the US has been boasting about their new plan for Palestine and even calling it the deal of the century. What do you think would be in the new deal for the Palestinians?

A: The deal of the century seems to be a mirage. No details have emerged and it has been promised for a launch for months but with no firm date. The Palestinians have already rejected a US made plan after US President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the holy city. Jerusalem and the issue of the refugees are key final status issues that Trump has attempted to take off the negotiation’s table. With Netanyahu claiming Israel must have security control from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, there is very little that the ’deal of the century’ can compensate for exclusion of these issues from future negotiations. The deal is likely to focus on economic prosperity for Palestinians, which this naïve American administration thinks the Palestinians will accept to end their struggle. The Great March of Return has demonstrated that the Palestinians will continue to struggle, no matter what the cost until they attain their rights.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Serious question: What is Zionism?

April 01, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: In the following  article John Carville digs into the belly of the beast. He questions the validity of the dichotomy between the ‘J’ and the ‘Z.’  He calls to launch a critical study of different aspects of Jewish culture, politics, identity and power. In 2011 I published The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. The book was denounced by Zionists and Jewish anti Zionists alike as it proclaimed that since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State it is Jewishness (rather than Zionism) which we must understand first.  In the book I offered a solution to some of  the questions raised by Craville. I contended that instead of asking ‘what Jews are’ or even ‘what Judaism is,’ we should study what are the set of ideologies, precepts and philosophies that people who self identify as Jews adhere to. In my work, Jews are neither a biological continuum nor they are a religious collective. In The Wandering Who Jewishness proves itself to be an elastic identitarian construct.  

We have learned to accept that we are living in a post truth era.  But here is the good news: the more is invested in suppressing the truth, the more the truth is keen to unveil itself.

Serious question: What is Zionism?

By John Carville

If Zionism was the political movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in the Middle East, then surely it achieved its goal and the term ceased to have meaning in terms of defining the objectives of a political movement.

Alternatively, if Zionism then morphed into support for the continued existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, then the only point of view what would not be Zionist would be the one that calls the Jewish state illegitimate and calls for it to be dismantled. Yet there are few political voices that call for such an approach, and governments that have referred to the Jewish state as illegitimate have been demonized for doing so. Clearly, such a view is regarded as a fringe one.

So, what is Zionism today? Is everybody who does not declare Israel to be an illegitimate state that should be dismantled and the land given back to its dispossessed people a Zionist? Would that not make nearly everyone a Zionist? And, if so, does that not deprive the term of any meaning whatsoever?

This is not just semantics. Clearly, considerable effort goes on, particularly within movements like BDS and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, to imprint the mantra into people’s minds that it is “Zionism not Judaism” that is responsible for the ongoing plight of the Palestinian people; and that, more importantly, we should not ask any questions about the role of Judaic teaching or ideology in attempting to understand what motivated and continues to motivate the supporters of what is now a genocidal apartheid state that openly defines itself as a “Jewish state” in the Middle East. If it is Zionism and not Judaism that is the problem, then clearly we need to understand what Zionism is (and, relatedly, whether it is rooted in Jewish religious teaching). And if Zionism turns out to be an empty concept, then we should be asking ask what are the ideological underpinnings of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians (and the lack of action on the part of the international community in that context) for more than 70 years.

Personally, I reject the “Zionism is not Judaism” approach and see that we are being fobbed off with nonsense. It seems clear that this wonderfully popular term “Zionism” is now devoid of content. Either no one is now a Zionist (because the goal of Zionism was achieved via the Catastrophe of 1948) or almost everyone is a Zionist (because there are very few people who would declare that the Jewish state should be dismantled and returned to its dispossessed owners). And,as Israel Shahak argued eloquently in his important and insightful work Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, I would suggest that we cannot begin to understand Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians without examining the roots of Judaic thinking and Jewish identity in the ethnically and religiously discriminatory doctrines of Judaic religion, which has shaped the Jewish mindset for most of its history. It seems, however, that Shahak’s writing continues to reap far less attention than it merits.

Yesterday, I attended a social evening organized by BDS Granada. Towards the end of the evening, I spoke to a couple of members, who seemed very nice people, but they instantly became uncomfortable when I made this point, namely, that we cannot understand Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinians without looking at its ideological roots and justification in the Jewish religion. ‘Oh no,’ they said, ‘that is dangerously close to anti-Semitism. Zionism is not Judaism,’ etc. Then their Jewish friend popped up and, well, let’s just say things went downhill from there.

Clearly, the topic continues to be both policed and silenced within many circles. It is thus no surprise that the activities of the many nice people within the BDS movement and various PSC collectives have failed to gain any real traction over the last decades, when discussion of issues highly relevant for understanding the problem continue to be policed and rendered taboo out of fear of offending Jewish feelings. And while I agree that there is always a need to respect the feelings of others in all forms of discourse, this needs to be balanced against many other needs, including the right to free speech – especially when the matter involves attempts to resolve ongoing crimes against humanity being committed against a specific collectivity, in this case the Palestinian people. To say that we cannot understand the roots of Israel’s ongoing genocide without examining the doctrines of Judaic teaching over the centuries is not to call for violence or discrimination against people who identify as Jews (and there are various different mechanisms of identification involved here, which merit considerable academic analysis in themselves). Nor is it an attempt to say that all people who identify as Jewish are involved in or support the illegal, oppressive and discriminatory actions of the Jewish state. Attempts to suggest otherwise violate our right to and need for free and open discourse on matters of great importance. Furthermore, discourse about justifications of violence in religious texts have taken place without problem in the context of other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam (and also, “Hinduism”, though this term is something of a misnomer for the various traditions that are usually grouped together under this name).

Like Professor E Michael Jones, who has also sought to open up discourse surrounding Jewish thinking so that we might understand what is going on in our world, I have never advocated violence against any specific collectivity. And, like Gilad Atzmon, too, I reject racially or biologically based generalizations to examine questions related to the political and social influence of Jewish power and ideology in our world. I have lost count of the amount of times I have had to explain that to talk about discriminatory and supremacist teachings at the core of Judaic teaching does not mean that all individuals who identify as Jewish are as equally influenced by such doctrines. Jewish thought runs the gamut from the belief that all human beings (including non-Jews) should have the same rights and be valued and treated equally to the view that non-Jews have Satanic souls, that only Jews have a Higher Soul that comes from God, and that the non-Jew exists only to serve the Jew like a clever beast of burden, with a vast range of shades in between representing various attempts to reconcile (or not) the notion of being a “chosen people” with a private covenant with their own god (hence the commandment that ‘thou shalt not have other gods before me’) and own set of laws, on the one hand, with the Enlightenment ideals of universalizable morals and the equality of all human beings, on the other. Certainly, there are many people who identify as Jews today who would seek to distance themselves from views espoused by groups such as that of the powerful ultra-Orthodox sect Chabad that it is only Jews that have a Higher Soul, or that expressed by the chief rabbi of the Sephardic community that Gentiles exist only to serve Jews. On the other hand, in noting that, we must also recognize that such an egalitarian strand within Jewish thinking is a relatively recent phenomenon, stretching back only to the post-Enlightenment period, when many Jews sought to break free of the strict mental and social control of the rabbis that had sought to keep them segregated from the rest of humanity in ghettos for so long. And the deep traces of the ancient religious teachings can still be found, and thus merit serious examination, even within today’s secular Jews. As the joke has it, and not without some merit, many secular Jews say they don’t believe in God that but still seem to think He granted them their “promised land”.

Leaving all that aside for now, though, the fact that there exist individuals who identify as Jewish but who reject (consciously or otherwise) the discriminatory ideology of Judaic teaching does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about the role of supremacist and genocidal teachings within Jewish thought as a Jewish phenomenon as a whole, just as the fact that there are many Americans who have opposed US exceptionalism throughout history does not mean that we cannot or should not be allowed to talk meaningfully about American exceptionalism. This should be fairly obvious. Even in the recent farcical allegations of Russian collusion made against the Trump campaign, no one suggested that all Russians were colluding with Trump, or that Trump’s team was colluding with all Russians. It’s quite simple really. The fact that there are people who see themselves as Jewish who reject (to greater or lesser degree) Jewish supremacist ideology and activity does not mean that we cannot and should not be allowed to talk about supremacist and genocidal thinking within Jewish ideology and religious teaching, nor to examine how far such thought influences events in the social and political sphere. And the fact that so much effort goes into attempting to prevent us from doing so should set off red warning lamps in the minds of any true defender of freedom of speech and academic enquiry.

I thus repeat my claim from a day or two ago, that we need (but of course will not get for what should be by now obvious reasons) full academic recognition of a critical discourse on questions related to Jewish identity, Jewish thinking and Jewish power. We might perhaps call such discourse Critical Jewish Studies. And it should be understood by any legitimate scholar of integrity that Critical Jewish Studies is not anti-Semitism, and that any attempt to silence such studies or discourse on such grounds would represent a violation of principles of free enquiry that any true academic should seek to defend, as well as of the natural law right to freedom of speech.

My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Donate

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Palestine Solidarity at the Crossroads

Last week we saw how Baroness Jenny Tonge was cruelly maligned in the House of Lords by Lords Pickles and Polak. Pickles invited the minister and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) to join him in condemning Jenny for “suggesting that the murders in Pittsburgh were caused by the actions of the Israeli Government”.

He accused her of causing “great pain in Pittsburgh” and (horror of horrors) falling foul of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

Jewish News reported that Pickles and Polak, both high-ranking figures in the Israel lobby, slammed her “callous inflammatory” remarks which, they claimed, were “in clear violation of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the UK Government. For a Member of the House of Lords to publish such hateful thoughts brings Parliament into disrepute.”

Polak, according to this report in The Guardian, appears to work pretty much full-time for Israel and has abused the privilege of peerage. Many might think that brings the British Parliament into far greater disrepute.

So what did Baroness Jenny say on her Facebook page to warrant such a nasty personal attack? “Absolutely appalling and a criminal act, but does it ever occur to Bibi and the present Israeli government that its actions against Palestinians may be reigniting anti-Semitism? I suppose someone will say that it is anti-Semitic to say so?”

The PSC issued a statement complaining she “suggested Israel’s policies and its treatment of the Palestinians could be contributing to a rise in anti-Semitism generally” and the PSC regarded her post as “deeply troubling… and risked being read as implying that anti-Semitism can only be understood in the context of a response to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such a view risks justifying or minimising anti-Semitism.”

As if their snottiness towards one of its founders and patrons wasn’t enough the PSC told Jewish News they were considering “further steps”. Baroness Jenny is a founder and long-time member of the PSC and a courageous fighter for Palestinian rights. At that point, given the PSC Management’s uncalled-for hostility, she thought it best to spare her many friends embarrassment and resign.

Now a petition is being put to the PSC by members expressing outrage that instead of defending her the PSC’s Executive joined in the Zio attacks. It insists that nothing she said was anti-Semitic, adding that “it is perfectly reasonable to link Israel’s murderous behaviour with attacks on Jews”. It calls for the Executive to apologise and ask Jenny to reconsider her decision to resign.

But would she? Jenny Tonge might do better hitching her wagon to a reinvigorated, turbocharged BDS movement, at least until the PSC is purged of its head office idiots.

‘The Inquisition rules’

Two weeks earlier the Jewish Chronicle and the British Medical Journal reported another craven act against the Baroness, this time by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine which withdrew its invitation to Jenny to be a panellist at a meeting on maternal health. The reason? Because of “very recent media reports and allegations of anti-Semitic sentiment which are contradictory to our organisational ethos, and which we do not feel are complementary to this event.” What sort of organisational ethos confuses anti-Semitism with maternal health issues in developing countries?

Jenny said: “I was un-invited after complaints from an unknown source, claiming that my presence would disrupt the meeting. I was not allowed to know who the complainant was… How they thought I could bring criticism of the government of Israel into maternal health I do not know.

“Criticise the Israeli government and you are excluded from other things too. The inquisition rules.”

The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine subsequently told the BMJ: “There was external concern that a successful debate… would be sidetracked by public questions related to the extensive anti-Semitic issues linked to the Labour Party that were dominating the UK media at the time of the event.”

Feeble excuse. It doesn’t say much for whoever chairs their meetings if they cannot stop the discussion from being sidetracked and going off-topic.

How many anti-Semitism claims have a legal basis?

Hugh Tomlinson QC recently warned that if a public authority did decide to adopt the IHRA definition (though it wasn’t obliged to) then it must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with its statutory obligations and doesn’t cut across the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. Unless, of course, they amount to a call for violence, hatred or intolerance.

A further obligation put on public authorities is “to create a favourable environment for participation in public debates for all concerned, allowing them to express their opinions and ideas without fear, even if these opinions and ideas are contrary to those defended by the official authorities or by a large part of public opinion, or even if those opinions and ideas are irritating or offensive to the public”. A public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such expressions “would be acting unlawfully.”

Pickles and Polak should remember this next time they rise to speak in the House of Lords or anywhere else.

Retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Stephen Sedley, pointed out that the 1986 Education Act established an individual right of free expression in all higher education institutions “which cannot be cut back by governmental policies”. He called for the Government to retreat from its “naively adopted” stance.

So according to top legal opinion the IHRA Definition does not make calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating boycott, divestment or sanctions (BDS) against Israel anti-Semitic. Also, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes “the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

As for the ghastly truth about Israel on top of all the other evidence, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) produced a report establishing that Israel, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is a thoroughly vile apartheid regime. Such was the fuss kicked up when it appeared that it has been withdrawn from UN websites.

But don’t worry, you can read about it here.  Among its conclusions:

• The authors urge the United Nations to implement this finding by fulfilling its international responsibilities in relation to international law and the rights of the Palestinian people as a matter of urgency, for two reasons.
• First, the situation addressed in the report is ongoing….. In the case of Israel-Palestine, any delay compounds the crime by prolonging the subjugation of Palestinians to the active practice of apartheid by Israel. Prompt action is accordingly imperative….
• Secondly…. since the 1970s, when the international campaign to oppose apartheid in southern Africa gathered momentum, apartheid has been considered in the annals of the United Nations and world public opinion to be second only to genocide in the hierarchy of criminality.
• This report accordingly recommends that the international community act immediately, without waiting for a more formal pronouncement regarding the culpability of the State of Israel, its Government and its officials for the commission of the crime of apartheid….
• The prohibition of apartheid is considered ‘jus cogens’ in international customary law. States have a separate and collective duty (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a State in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end. A State that fails to fulfil those duties could itself be held legally responsible for engaging in wrongful acts involving complicity with maintaining an apartheid regime.

No wonder it was hushed up.

What next?

Miko Peled, in my recent interview with him, underlined the need for activists to shift up a gear and accelerate from solidarity to full-on resistance. This means wider involvement, better co-ordination, revised targeting and sharper strategy. In effect a BDS Mk2, turbocharged. And it involves treating Zionism and those who promote or support it with far less tolerance. As Miko said on another occasion, “If opposing Israel is anti-Semitism then what do you call supporting a state that has been engaged in brutal ethnic cleansing for seven decades?”

Indeed. And what do you call people in public life who adore and defend that state and intimidate anyone who voices disapproval?

Things are changing. The Stop the War Coalition last weekend brought together a number of experts in a conference about “re-framing the debate” on Palestine. That whole discussion is long overdue and I’m waiting to hear what came out of it. For example, robust measures must be put in place to counter bogus accusations of anti-Semitism stifling free speech

It might be no bad thing if someone came forward with a proposal for a centralised legal unit to reprimand the Zio-extremists who overstep the mark and use false accusations of anti-Semitism to pour hatred on the likes of Jenny Tonge.

Efforts must be made to ensure public institutions like Parliament don’t provide a platform for such odious behaviour. It would also be the unit’s task to launch into the public domain a working definition of anti-Palestinian racism similar to the one recently proposed by Jewish Voice for Labour.

By Stuart Littlewood
Source

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

UK’s Labor Party Passes Motion to Ban Arms Sales to «Israel»

Local Editor

Delegates of the UK Labor Party voted Tuesday to ban arms sales to the “Israeli” entity over its abuses against the Palestinians. This party policy that could be translated into official government policy if and when the party is elected to lead the United Kingdom.

The motion was passed at the party’s annual conference in Liverpool.

The unprecedented resolution noted that “the majority of Palestinian people were forcibly displaced from their homes” during the Nakba and condemned the “aggressive attempt to rewrite history and erase the victims of the 1948 war.”

It called for an “independent international investigation into ‘Israel’s’ use of force against Palestinian demonstrators,” an “immediate and unconditional end to the illegal blockade and closure of Gaza,” and “a freeze of UK Government arms sales to ‘Israel’”.

The motion noted that amongst those martyred during the Palestinian protests of recent months are paramedics, journalists, women, and children, while than half of the injured were hit with live fire by snipers as they approached the border with the “Israeli” entity.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) Chair Hugh Lanning said: “We have witnessed extraordinary scenes of solidarity today and the Labor Party has done the right thing by recognizing the longstanding injustice of the entity’s violation of Palestinian rights.

PSC handed out more than a thousand Palestinian flags at the conference. In remarkable scenes, many hundreds of delegates stood and waved their flags inside the conference hall when the motion was debated and chants of “Free Palestine!” were clearly heard.

PSC director Ben Jamal said: “This incredible show of support and this historic motion demonstrate the strength of feeling at the grassroots of the party. Labor members want to show real solidarity with Palestinians

The issue was in the top four of all issues discussed Tuesday in Liverpool. The vote to debate Palestine was fourth after housing, school systems, and justice for the Windrush generation. It gained more votes than the issues of Brexit, and the National Health System (NHS).

During the debate on Palestine, the party deliberated on UK arms sales to the “Israeli” entity, voting to end them until an independent investigation into the murder of more than 180 protesters in Gaza since March 30 can be carried out.

Though conference votes are not binding on leaders, Jeremy Corbyn, a supporter of the Palestinian cause, has promised to recognize Palestine as a state if his party comes to power.

The anti-Semitism charges against Corbyn were rejected by him, his supporters, and Palestinians citing the entity’s attempt to shut down any criticism of its policies and abuse against Palestinians and its occupation of their land.

But not all Palestinians are overjoyed with the new policies. Some are critical of the UK’s stand on the Oslo agreement which supports the creation of two states. For UK-based Palestinian author and academic, Ghada Karmi said during a Palestine Solidarity meeting that Labor cannot go on supporting a “defunct idea”. She also asked the party to stop being apologetic about the “Israeli” entity’s atrocities and to confront the entity and call out its actions against Palestinians.

According to Hazem Jamjoum, a Palestinian-American academic, the British empire helped create the so-called “state of ‘Israel’”; hence, it has a greater responsibility to support Palestine. He also warned that the entity’s impunity regarding apartheid, racist laws and ethnonationalism is creating precedents all over the globe, which is witnessing an increasing identity-based nationalism in many countries.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

The End of Zion

September 12, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Before the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashana, the Hebrews are commanded to make an audit – an overview of their standing in the world. Haaretz, the paper of the so called ‘thinking Israelis,’ followed that Mitzvah, polling Israeli Jews on their attitudes toward Jewishness, Judaism, God and ‘the Jew.’

The Jewish God

The Jewish God is, without doubt, a spectacular invention. He (she or it) was invented by the Jews to love them especially. The Jewish God comes across as a jealous and vengeful character. He engages in genocidal projects, using WMDs of chemical and biological warfare as the early Egyptians could testify. Clearly the Jewish God would stand no chance at The Hague, but Jews seem to love their God, or more likely, are fearful of their own invention.

One may wonder why the Jews invented such an unpleasant deity. Couldn’t they contemplate a merciful and kind father instead? Initially, Zionism was a secular nationalist Jewish movement that tried to separate Jews from their evil God, to make them enlightened people. With that in mind, it is fascinating to examine what was missing from the Zionist secular ‘promise.’
Not a lot apparently.

According to Haaretz’ poll, “54 percent of Jewish Israelis believe in God, and another 21 percent accept the existence of an undefined superior power other than God.” These results resemble the American attitude toward God. A poll published by Pew Research a few months ago found that 56 percent of Americans believe in the original God of the Bible and another 23 percent in a superior force. It is worth noting, however, that unlike the Jewish god, the American God is largely Christian - kind and merciful.

Haaretz’ poll reveals the intimate relationship between right wing politics and Judaism. 78% of the Israeli right believe in God. Only 15% of the left are believers. This means that as Israel becomes more religious, the fate of the Israeli left is sealed. This is hardly surprising. Left is a universal attitude. Judaism is a tribal precept. Left Judaism is a contradiction in terms, the tribal and the universal are like oil and water, they do not mix. The Israeli left is destined to die out (assuming that it isn’t dead already).

For the Jew not the Many

The poll reveals that “Slightly more than half of Jewish Israelis believe that their rights to the Land of Israel derive from God’s divine covenant in the Bible.” I guess this doesn’t leave much hope for peace. “56 percent believe that the Jewish people are chosen people.” This leaves even less hope for peace. And to remove any possible doubt of a peaceful resolution anytime soon, Haaretz reveals that “Seventy-nine percent of right-wingers believe that God singled out the Jews… Seventy-four percent of right-wingers believe that Israel holds a divine deed for its land.”

The vast majority of Israelis appear to adhere to a rigid Judaic notion of choseness that is translated into an entitlement to someone else’s land.

I wonder what the 13% of Israeli ‘leftists’ who see themselves as ‘chosen’ understand left ideology to be. Is ‘for the Jew not the Many’ how they interpret social justice?

The Jewish Deity
In my latest book, ‘Being in Time,’ I argue that a cultural study of the Jews and their many religious precepts (Juda-ism, Athe-ism, Zion-ism,  Holocaust-ism, Moral Intervention-ism, everything-ism etc.)  reveals that Jewish religions can be characterised as a set of ideas that facilitate entitlements. The holocaust, thought by some Jewish scholars to be the most popular Jewish religion, is attached to a list of entitlements that are cultural, political and, of course, financial.  Zionism, another popular Jewish religion, holds that it was the ‘God of Israel’ that promised Palestine to the chosen people. But Jewish entitlement is not just an Israeli or Zionist attitude. When Jewish anti Zionists offer their political positions, they first declare their unique ‘Jewish entitlement’ to their beliefs. ‘As Jews we are there to kosher the Palestinian Solidarity movement.’ Many of the same Jews who ‘legitimised’ the Palestine plight, are busy these days giving a kosher stamp to Jeremy Corbyn. In general, the Jewish left’s entitlement has been exercised by disseminating ‘kosher stamps’ that paint ‘the Jews’ in a positive, humane light.

Israel seems to be divided on religious issues but the trend is clear. With 51 percent believing that the Jews’ right to Israel stems from God’s promise, regional reconciliation probably isn’t the next project in the ‘pipe line.’

Darwin didn’t make Aliya

The poll suggests that Israel is separating geographically and culturally: “eighty-five percent of Jerusalemites believe in God, compared with only 44 percent in Tel Aviv and the central region. Only a quarter of Israeli Jews fully keep Shabbat, but 66 percent keep it in Jerusalem as compared with just 15 percent in Tel Aviv or Haifa. Thirty-seven percent don’t believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor – a disturbing finding – but in Jerusalem the anti-Darwinians enjoy an absolute majority of 81 percent while in Tel Aviv they're in a distinct minority ‘of only’ 27 percent.”


Israel is getting “Jewier”

Haaretz notes that “the most startling gaps are generational. In Israel in 2018, the younger the Jew, the more likely he or she is to be more religious, observant, conservative and willing to impose his or her beliefs on others. Sixty-five percent of the population would let supermarkets and groceries operate on Shabbat, but that position is supported by only 51 percent of people between 18 and 24, compared with 84 percent of those 65 and older.”

Haaretz points out that that the religious shift of young Israelis “stands in stark contrast to current trends in the United States and Western Europe, where millennials are ditching religion in droves.” In Israel, “younger Jews go to shul at twice the rate of their parents and grandparents, while in the United States and Western Europe the opposite is true.” In other words, “Israel is getting Jewier, at least for the time being.”

These results indicate that Israel is drifting away from enlightenment. Zionism promised to modernise and civilise the Jews by means of ‘homecoming,’ but the Jewish state has achieved the opposite result. While Israel has transformed itself into an oppressive dark ghetto surrounded by humongous concrete walls, it is actually the young diaspora Jews who are ditching the ghetto.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Zuckerberg On Denial and Being Wrong

July 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

In an interview with technology website Recode, Mark Facebook  Zuckerberg stated that posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.

In response to a question on Facebook’s policy on fake news, Mr. Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of posts by Holocaust deniers.

“I’m Jewish and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,” he told reporter Kara Swisher. “I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”

He added, “everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that.”

Despite the fact that FB has earned itself a reputation as a tyrannical Zionist force and an enemy of elementary freedoms, Zuckerberg expressed a clear position consistent with whatever is left of the true American spirit and the 1st Amendment.

The Jewish press is totally upset by Zuckerberg’s policy.  Israeli commentators denounced his remarks.  Here in Britain, the editor of the so called ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight, Gerry Gable, told the BBC that  “Because of his financial powers, he [Zuckerberg] just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches.” I can’t see how comments about the past incite violence against “synagogues, mosques or churches.” But of course, “crazy people” can firebomb anything at anytime, regardless of Zuckerberg’s recent intervention. I’d advise the Gable that the perception of Facebook as a tyrannical Zionist power that silences differing viewpoints may be far more dangerous for Jews and others.

I probably should have finished today’s article here. But I just can’t stop myself from taking this discussion at least one step further.

Here is a point to ponder: with Zuckerberg presenting a reasonable and tolerant attitude to historical debate, WWII, history revisionism and the Holocaust can easily be reduced to an internal Jewish debate. This is the point I make in my recent book, ‘Being in Time.’ I contend that when Jews accept that something about their culture, ideology or politics is perceived as a ‘Jewish problem,’ some Jews are quick to form a satellite opposition.

When it became clear that the criminality of the State that defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ had become a Jewish problem, Jews for Palestine was created. The Palestine solidarity movement was rapidly reduced to an internal debate among Jews. Here in Britain, some Jews grasped that the Jewish campaign against Jeremy Corbyn is very dangerous for the Jews.  Jews for Corbyn was formed. At the moment, the future of the Labour party has become an internal Jewish debate between the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement and the so called ‘anti’ Jewish Voice for Labour. Neocon wars are now an internal Jewish debate between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. In his brave essay, ‘On The Jewish Question,’ Karl Marx comes to the conclusion that Capitalism is a ‘Jewish symptom’. Not surprisingly, many of his followers were of Jewish origin and the battle of capitalism (for and against) became an internal Jewish discourse. It is possible that Zuckerberg, who is not stupid, can sense the growing resentment to FB’s Zio-centrism and he is clever enough to present a new more liberal principled view. He even kindly allows the rest of us to be wrong.

In ‘Being in Time’ I note that the emergence of a Jewish satellite opposition is not necessarily a conspiratorial maneuver. It is only natural for Jews to oppose the crimes committed in their name by the Jewish State. It is equally natural for Jews to oppose Zio-con global wars. It is also reasonable for Zuckerberg to try to amend the negative impression his company bought itself in recent years and to decide to promote basic freedom of speech. The outcome, however, could be problematic. The entire debate on elementary rights and freedoms can easily become an internal Jewish discourse.

To understand ID politics read

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

On Jewish controlled opposition:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Zuckerberg On Denial and Being Wrong

July 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

In an interview with technology website Recode, Mark Facebook  Zuckerberg stated that posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.

In response to a question on Facebook’s policy on fake news, Mr. Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of posts by Holocaust deniers.

“I’m Jewish and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,” he told reporter Kara Swisher. “I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”

He added, “everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that.”

Despite the fact that FB has earned itself a reputation as a tyrannical Zionist force and an enemy of elementary freedoms, Zuckerberg expressed a clear position consistent with whatever is left of the true American spirit and the 1st Amendment.

The Jewish press is totally upset by Zuckerberg’s policy.  Israeli commentators denounced his remarks.  Here in Britain, the editor of the so called ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight, Gerry Gable, told the BBC that  “Because of his financial powers, he [Zuckerberg] just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches.” I can’t see how comments about the past incite violence against “synagogues, mosques or churches.” But of course, “crazy people” can firebomb anything at anytime, regardless of Zuckerberg’s recent intervention. I’d advise the Gable that the perception of Facebook as a tyrannical Zionist power that silences differing viewpoints may be far more dangerous for Jews and others.

I probably should have finished today’s article here. But I just can’t stop myself from taking this discussion at least one step further.

Here is a point to ponder: with Zuckerberg presenting a reasonable and tolerant attitude to historical debate, WWII, history revisionism and the Holocaust can easily be reduced to an internal Jewish debate. This is the point I make in my recent book, ‘Being in Time.’ I contend that when Jews accept that something about their culture, ideology or politics is perceived as a ‘Jewish problem,’ some Jews are quick to form a satellite opposition.

When it became clear that the criminality of the State that defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ had become a Jewish problem, Jews for Palestine was created. The Palestine solidarity movement was rapidly reduced to an internal debate among Jews. Here in Britain, some Jews grasped that the Jewish campaign against Jeremy Corbyn is very dangerous for the Jews.  Jews for Corbyn was formed. At the moment, the future of the Labour party has become an internal Jewish debate between the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement and the so called ‘anti’ Jewish Voice for Labour. Neocon wars are now an internal Jewish debate between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. In his brave essay, ‘On The Jewish Question,’ Karl Marx comes to the conclusion that Capitalism is a ‘Jewish symptom’. Not surprisingly, many of his followers were of Jewish origin and the battle of capitalism (for and against) became an internal Jewish discourse. It is possible that Zuckerberg, who is not stupid, can sense the growing resentment to FB’s Zio-centrism and he is clever enough to present a new more liberal principled view. He even kindly allows the rest of us to be wrong.

In ‘Being in Time’ I note that the emergence of a Jewish satellite opposition is not necessarily a conspiratorial maneuver. It is only natural for Jews to oppose the crimes committed in their name by the Jewish State. It is equally natural for Jews to oppose Zio-con global wars. It is also reasonable for Zuckerberg to try to amend the negative impression his company bought itself in recent years and to decide to promote basic freedom of speech. The outcome, however, could be problematic. The entire debate on elementary rights and freedoms can easily become an internal Jewish discourse.

To understand ID politics read

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

On Jewish controlled opposition:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Truth, Truthfulness and Palestine

June 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Talk delivered at Deep Truth-Countering Deep State Lies (online conference)   

Sun 10 June

By Gilad Atzmon

A healthy society doesn’t need a ‘truth movement.’  But we Americans, Brits, French and Germans are far from healthy and our so-called ‘truth movements’ haven’t led us towards any sources of light. The question is: Why?

One possible answer is that ‘truth movements’ are ideal environments for the operators of controlled opposition — those who insist upon vetting any discussion about the truth by claiming to know what ‘the truth’ is, what it comprises and who its enemies are.

Karl Popper posited that since no number of scientific experiments could definitively prove a scientific theory we should utilise a methodology based on falsifiability. While we posses the means to refute a scientific theory or scientific ‘truth,’ we lack the ability to verify a single scientific theory by means of experiments. For instance, if you state that ‘the sun rises in the East’ is a valid scientific truth, a single occasion of the sun popping up early in the morning in the West will refute your theory. “Building Number Seven” may not point at the culprit behind 9/11 but it is thought to refute the official 9/11 narrative. Furthermore, history laws such as Holocaust denial laws in Europe or the Nakba law in Israel exist to defy alteration, refutation or scholarly debate about the past. Instead of helping us to grasp our past, the existence of such laws reveals to us that some parties are desperate to stop anyone from exploring  what really happened.

The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard observed in his book, ‘Heidegger and The Jews’ that history may claim to tell us what happened, but most of the time ‘history’ is institutionally engaged in concealing our shame. The Americans, for instance, conceal the brutality of slavery, the Brits conceal the crimes of the empire, the Jews suppress any inquiry into Jewish accountability for Jewish history’s chain of disasters and so on. The message here is that instead of simply learning history from historians, we may well benefit from adopting a psychoanalytical approach to try to understand what historians work to conceal. We should ask why does America build a holocaust museum in every city? Why did the Brits make the Imperial Wars Museum into a Holocaust shrine? We may even want to understand how it is possible that on the same day Israel celebrated “the biggest Gay Pride Parade in the region” hundreds of Israeli snipers were deployed on the Gaza border with orders to shoot every Palestinian who might try to break out of the Gaza concentration camp. Israel’s liberal LGBT attitude is basically a pink-wash, an attempt to conceal Israel’s abusive racist policies towards the indigenous people of its land.

But there is reason to be optimistic. Against the odds, and despite the open assault on truthfulness, truth has a unique ability to unveil itself.

In this presentation today we will look at Palestine and Israel in the light of truth and truthfulness and we will find out that by now we are all Palestinians. Like the Palestinians we are not allowed to utter the name of our oppressors.

Trump and Truthfulness

If truth reveals itself however involuntarily, President Trump is a leading vehicle or, perhaps, an arch facilitator, for such process to take place.  Let us, for instance, examine Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This cataclysmic political decision was criticised by every reasonable figure globally but it actually provided the opportunity for the truth to unveil itself.

Just a few hours after Trump’s televised announcement, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas informed Vice President Pence who was at a state visit in the region that he was persona non grata in Ramallah. President Abbas’ reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem move was to declare that America can no longer act as a negotiator, it is a side in the conflict. It was Trump’s Jerusalem move that finally allowed the penny to drop. America hasn’t just taken a side in the conflict, it may as well be an Israeli colony.

Truth Shines on the Jewish Solidarity Spin

Over the last two decades the Palestinian solidarity movement has become a toy for Jewish solidarity. The results of this have been devastating. The core Palestinian plight, namely The Right of Return was practically wiped out and replaced by Israel-friendly terminology such as ‘End of Occupation’ – a set of peaceful sounding bites that in practice legitimise the existence of the pre-1967 Jewish State. New sound bites were attached to the Israeli Palestinian conflict such as: apartheid, colonialism, settler colonialism and even BDS. These misleading terminologies were designed to convey the image that the Israeli Palestinian conflict was not unique, that it had precedents in history. Of course, this is simply wrong and consciously misleading. Zionism is based upon the ludicrous idea that Jews have the right to return to their ‘homeland’ after 2000 years. Who else should enjoy such a ‘universal’ right? Can my Italian drummer claim my house in London as a ‘Roman offspring’?

But Trump’s Jerusalem move reminded the Palestinians that the denial of the Right of Return is at the core of their plight. It is the Right of Return that they should fight for, the Right of Return and nothing but that Right.  Since March we have seen huge protests by Palestinians on the Gaza border. These protests have cost a lot of Palestinian lives. Hundreds were murdered by Israeli snipers, thousands have been injured, but the truth has prevailed. The current resistance by the Palestinians has achieved more of an impact than 20 years of wasted diluted kosher solidarity: Israel is now on the defensive: boycotted culturally and spiritually. PM Netanyahu visited every significant European capitol in the last few days begging for support on Iran. He found closed doors. The Argentinian football team cancelled its visit to Israel. Today I read in the Israeli press that more and more Spanish municipalities ban Israeli cultural events. These measures are a direct reaction to Israeli barbarism in Gaza and beyond.

 Killing From Afar

The Austrian Philosopher Otto Weininger dedicated his valuable text ‘Sex & Character’ to a harsh deconstruction of the ‘female character,’ and then concluded his work by suggesting that the Jewish male is a woman. Weininger killed himself shortly after, he probably couldn’t stand the fact that he himself was an effeminate character as well as a Jew.

Zionism, either consciously or subconsciously took Weininger very seriously. In its early stages Zionism saw itself as an alpha male factory. It brought to life the new Israeli — the Sabra named for the prickly pear.  The  diaspora assimilated Jew, was, in Zionist eyes,  indistinguishable from the outside but calculating and mean on the inside. In contrast, the new Israeli Sabra was to be rough and tough on the outside, yet sweet and humane on the inside.

The Zionists promise was to construct the new Jew, to make him and her into warriors — Combatants that could fight for their cause unlike their Diaspora relatives who were thought to have surrendered like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’

Israeli history suggests that this project seemed successful for a while. In Israel’s early days young Hebrews were willing to fight and die. Indeed, they won a few successive battles (1948, ‘56 and ‘67). I was brought up within this Spartan environment. My peers and I looked forward to sacrificing ourselves on the Jewish nationalist altar. This has clearly changed. The Israeli army is no longer a winning army. Not only does it lack decisive victories, more often it finds itself defeated, withdrawn from the battlefield with its tail between its legs.

What we have seen on the Gaza border in the last two months reveals that Otto Weininger’s observation was indeed prescient. Again the truth has unveiled itself however involuntarily. The Israeli army is an army that kills from afar. It is basically a barbarian criminal outfit dominated by the cowardly nature of its members.

The Israeli military elite has dreaded a March to Jerusalem for decades.  Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians marching back to their lands, homes, cities and villages is something that can’t be easily addressed militarily. Generals are naturally fearful of such incidents because they entail unpredictability. It is impossible to predict how a lone rifleman will react when confronted by thousands of angry Palestinians closing in on him — will he stay to defend his position or will he run for safety?  And what about the air force, can we count on an F-16 pilot to drop a napalm bomb on unarmed Palestinians marching towards Tel Aviv? Seemingly the Israeli generals have found an answer to the above dilemma – they kill from afar.

Israel has deployed thousands of snipers in Gaza. They are ordered to kill from afar. Not exactly the early Zionist heroic image of a face to face warrior who sees the eyeballs of his foe as he fights for his survival. But the snipers are not alone. Israeli pilots also rocket Gaza from a distance while cruising over the Negev or the Sea.  Both the snipers and the pilots are supported by dozens of drones that are controlled by boys and girls who operate in safety and comfort in air-conditioned units.

Otto Weininger’s diagnosis had some merit. Apparently the alpha male transition didn’t work as the early Zionists wished.

We Are All Palestinians

Truth, as we know, is under attack in the West. It doesn’t take a genius to identify the elements that see truth as a threat and seek to suppress truth seeking. The political means that have been designed to suppress truth and truthfulness operate openly. At one stage this online conference was  named  ‘The Left Out Forum.’ It is the platform for scholars and humanists who unveil the shame that  the Left in its current permutation can’t handle. How did it happen to the Left? This is easy to explain – at a certain stage the good old Left was hijacked by the so –called ‘New Left’ — a corrosive set of ‘ideologies’ that are designed to suppress truth and truthfulness.

The New Left assault on truth is facilitated by two means. The first is ID politics – a divisive crude attempt to teach us to speak ‘as a’ (as a woman, as a Jew, as a Lesbian, as a Black, etc.). ID politics has either consciously or not removed us from authenticity and authentic thinking. Instead of pondering for ourselves, we learned to think ‘as a’ in a collective manner (as a Jew, as a Trans, as a Gay, etc.)

The second New Left tactic is so-called ‘Political Correctness.’  PC culture is basically politics that doesn’t allow political opposition. Interestingly enough, this is exactly how we define authoritarian and tyrannical discourse. The truth of the matter is that tyrannical conditions are light in comparison with PC culture because PC is driven by self-suppression. It represses our ability to express ourselves authentically, and even more dangerously PC stops us from thinking independently.

All of this has led me to the conclusion that in the world in which we live, we are all Palestinians. Palestine is not just some far away conflict. It is here all around us: like the Palestinians we are unable to explicitly utter the name of our oppressors. Like the Palestinians, our dissent has been compromised. In Britain, the police will knock on your door as soon as you tweet your thoughts about Israel and its Lobby. America is catching up.   Like the Palestinians, our truth has been hijacked but it has not been murdered.

Truth, as we have seen, is a lasting enduring concept.  Truth is that which unveils itself against all odds. Whether we like it or not, truth will shine upon us as it has shined upon Gaza and Palestine in the last two months. However, the truth may not be where we expect to find it.

Otto Weininger taught us that “in art self- realisation is realisation of the world.” The artist, according to Weininger, hits the truth by means of self-reflection. Trying to universalise Weininger’s insight may suggest that truth happens to unveil itself to us because the truth is in us. Truth is not what you find out while examining the world, it is not in the press or in the media, on CNN, the BBC or the Guardian of the Judea. Truth is not what you find in academia or even in a truth movement’s pamphlets. Truth unveils itself because truth is that which we find within ourselves. Truth is found when we close our eyes in disbelief. It reveals itself when we look inward, when we  learn to attend to our inner voice of reason and ethics.

Truth is not a personal esoteric experience. Quite the opposite, it is that kernel of humanity we all share. It is that which makes us into one, a one that transcends  political affiliation, identity, gender, race, ethnicity  or biology. As in Palestine, sooner rather than later,  we will realise that truth, so to say our truth, that which we share, is the only thing worth fighting for!

To Support Gilad’s Legal Defence Fund

DONATE

 

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk). 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!