Why Hate Gilad Atzmon Pt. 2: “He’s WRONG!” (Or Is He?)

by Kevin Barrett


Last Thursday’s essay “Why Hate Gilad Atzmon?” has been bouncing around the internet. (The title currently gets 780,000 Google hits).

In that piece I suggested that the anti-Atzmon brigade is defending sacred boundaries against Atzmon’s fearless questioning. The two taboo questions are: Is the whole notion of a Jewish state in Palestine (i.e., Zionism) legitimate and/or feasible? (The obvious answer, of course, is NO.) Second question: To what extent has Jewish identity politics contributed to the disaster of Zionism? (The obvious answer, of course, is “to a considerable extent.”)

“Don’t even go there!” they scream. Atzmon goes there. So they lynch him.

The truth hurts.

That’s my take, anyway. But not everyone agrees with me. I have received quite a few anti-Atzmon emails. They all make the same argument: Atzmon is wrong about X, Y, or Z, and therefore he is dangerous, a racist, a dangerous racist, and so on.

First, I would like to point out to these people that Atzmon has a right to be wrong. Since nobody is arguing that Atzmon is offering wrong facts – just wrong opinions, interpretations and orientations on very complex issues – his critics ought to be working harder to explain why he is wrong, rather than calling him names and organizing boycotts and smear campaigns on the basis of perfectly innocent quotes violently and misleadingly ripped from their contexts.

Second, it isn’t at all clear that Atzmon is wrong. What IS clear is that many of his opponents are.

Take the charge that Atzmon is an “essentialist.”

To call someone an “essentialist” (in the bad sense) is to argue that they prematurely end a discussion by fallaciously citing the “essence” of something.

For example, if someone argued that the reason African-American communities often have high crime rates is that “black people tend to be criminals, that’s just their nature” that person would be making a fallacious argument by falsely impugning an unchangeable “essence” to black people. And that person could plausibly be charged with bigotry. The logical fallacy involved is called “circular reasoning”: Black neighborhoods have higher crime rate, therefore black people are more likely to be criminals, because they’re the ones in the black neighborhoods, where crime rates are higher, ad infinitum. The problem with this argument is that it prematurely ends an inquiry into the real reason why crime rates are what they are; it short-circuits a more thoughtful investigation of the historical and cultural factors that have produced the phenomenon under investigation.

Now if Atzmon were to say “It is just the essence of Jewish nature to be greedy and violent, and that explains the rape of Palestine – end of story, and don’t bore me with historical and cultural explanations,” he would be an essentialist in the bad sense.

But that is not what he says. On the contrary, it is Atzmon who is opening a thoughtful discussion of the historical and cultural factors behind Zionism. And it is his opponents who want to prematurely shut down the inquiry by ruling that discussion off-limits. As Gilad puts it, the two-staters will only go back as far as 1967. One-staters go back to 1948, or maybe the Balfour declaration of 1917. Gilad wants to keep going, right back through the 19th century and beyond.

It is actually his opponents who are the essentialists. They believe that the essence of Jewishness is always either positive or neutral. Any discussion of Jewish culture or identity that brings up anything that is negatively-valued violates their sacred notion of the essence of Jewishness as innocence and victimization. Atzmon wants to talk about empirical historical reality, which bears little resemblance to the essentialist construct. So they shout him down, desperate to end the discussion before it starts. You’d almost think they have something to hide.

Ironically, most of those wailing that Atzmon is slandering the Jews are themselves slandering Atzmon. They call him a racist, with no evidence to back up that charge. (Atzmon’s critique of Jewish identity-politics and Jewish culture in general has absolutely nothing whatsoever do do with race, as he himself always makes abundantly clear, in part by pointing out that Jews are not a race.)

Let’s look at some of the charges against Gilad that have appeared in my in-box. They usually involve taking a quote and lying about it – I mean, misconstruing it.

Atzmon quote: “The remarkable fact is they [ all Jews--not Zionists] don’t understand why the world is beginning to stand against them in the same way they didn’t understand why the Europeans stood against them in the 1930s. Instead of asking why we are hated they continue to toss accusations on others.”

The writer claims that Atzmon is “blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.” That’s just not true. The quote, in its context, doesn’t say that. It addresses an empirical historical reality (Europe in the 1930s, the world today) that is much larger than “the Holocaust.” And once again, Gilad is the honest thinker while his opponents are the essentialists. For the essentialists, the essence of Jewishness is 100% pure victimhood, end of discussion: Not a single Jew on earth – including, for example, the Rothschilds and their big bankster friends who screwed Germany in World War I in exchange for Palestine – bears one iota of responsibility for the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany! (Just like the top neocons, of whom around 90% are Jewish and fanatical Zionists, bear not one iota of responsibility for the 9/11 wars against Israel’s enemies.)

If you are an honest historian and cultural analyst, whenever there is a conflict between two groups, you look at it from the point of view of various parties in both groups, and emerge with a more or less nuanced, multi-viewpoint, holistic picture. Gilad compares this to analyzing the problems that arise in the life of a couple. Should we take the word of one or the other party that he or she is 100% right, and the other 100% wrong? Or should we talk to both parties and try to take both perspectives into consideration?

If you an essentialist/mythologist, nourished on Old Testament exceptionalism and chosen-ness (like Americans in general, not just Jews) you may instead imagine that it is the essence of the good guys in your historical narrative to be good, and the essence of the bad guys to be bad. Jews good, Germans bad; ergo, US and Allies good, Axis bad. End of sacred story.

This is the essentialist myth that Americans and Westerners have accepted in place of real history. And it is this myth, more than any other, that is responsible for what William Blum calls “the American holocaust”: The massacre of uncounted millions, and the ruined lives of uncounted tens of millions more, by the CIA, the US military, and their allies since World War II. Taken together with Zionist atrocities against Palestine and their spill-over into widespread Middle East violence, and the WWII atrocities of the Allies against people in the Axis countries, and it should be clear to any sane and moderately well-informed person that the “good guys” who won World War II have committed vastly more mass-murder, vastly more atrocities, vastly greater crimes against the human body and spirit than the Nazis ever did. In short, as Philip K. Dick suggested in The Man in the High Castle, it was the real “Nazis” who WON World War II. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Only this realization will stop the Zio-American holocaust that continues today and threatens to explode into World War III.

But – as is commonly said in reference to the “good Germans” under Hitler – it is so much easier to just pretend it isn’t happening, and go along with the essentialist, exceptionalist assumption that your people are the good guys. And when someone like Niemoller or Atzmon comes along to challenge you, shout him down without giving him a fair hearing.

The confused individual who falsely charges Atzmon with blaming Jews for the Holocaust also calls Atzmon a racist:

“This is the essence of racism. Not that Jews like many before them have become corrupted by power. But that there is something pathological about Jewish culture–it must be their culture since he repudiates genetic explanations–that led them to become Zionists.”

Sorry, that is NOT “the essence of racism.” Racism offers biological explanations. Cultural explanations are THE OPPOSITE of racism!

Calling Atzmon “a racist” when you don’t even know what racism is…well, to say that this is inviting a defamation lawsuit is putting it mildly.

This person is trying to rule out any kind of investigation of cultural factors that led Jews to become Zionists. This is idiotic on its face. So in an attempt to prevent anyone, himself included, from actually thinking, he starts in with the mendacious insults: “Racist! Anti-Semite!”

Let’s get this straight: Nobody in his or her right mind has ever tried to prevent any discussion or investigation of cultural factors in history. Was there something in Protestant culture that led to the Industrial Revolution? Max Weber says yes – and he doesn’t give a good goddamn whether you feel he’s insulting Protestants (or Catholics) by investigating their respective cultures. Is there something in the culture of Muslim Saudi elites that is contributing to religious tensions in the region? Hell, yes – their hypocritical tolerance of wildly un-Islamic behavior for themselves, while imposing harsh restrictions on others. Is there something in Muslim culture that has slowed “economic progress” in Islamic countries? Sure, there are plenty of things, ranging from stopping to pray five times a day, to prohibitions against any kind of dealing involving interest, to culturally-accepted nepotism, to cultural preferences for working as an independent operator rather than a member of a corporate team.

Atzmon’s critics are wildly irrational in calling him a racist, and claiming that nobody should ever investigate cultural forces in history (the bread and butter of cultural historians). The dozens of people signing a statement to this effect - a statement containing blatantly false and defamatory assertions about Atzmon – might as well be signing a statement reading “I am an ignorant idiot.”

What these folks should be doing is reading Atzmon’s work carefully and holistically, and then, if they find that Atzmon is mistaken in his analysis of the way Jewish identity politics is a factor in Zionism, they should correct him. For once we’ve admitted that cultural critique is perfectly legitimate, we must add that not all cultural critiques are equal: It can be done badly, or well. Sure, some of Gilad’s statements about Jewish identity politics are tendentious or overly broad. And since his main focus is explaining the horrors of Zionism, he naturally talks more about negative cultural tropes than positive ones. (Personally I think that the positives in Jewish culture outweigh the negatives; but the positives, such as humor, education, bagels with lox and cream cheese and a thin slice of onion, etc. don’t explain what’s been done to Palestine.)

The irrational Atzmon critic continues:

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.”

Obviously this cannot be taken at face value. The French and the English are not identical, nor were their colonial projects. One thing I learned from postgraduate work in African Studies is that the French and English colonial projects differed wildly in accordance with the very different cultural peculiarities of the two nations. For example: The French, holding a monolithically statist and egalitarian ideology in keeping with their culture, did their best to grant the natives the status of honorary Frenchmen; and being slightly less racist than the British, they were more likely to intermarry with the colonized peoples.

So what is this dramatic, doth-protest-too-much insistence that “the Jews are ordinary people, just like the French and British” trying to hide?

The answer comes in the same sentence: The “deadly colonial project” of the Jews is happening at a “different time” from that of the French and English.

Let’s be specific: All other colonial projects – especially settler-colonial projects – are dead. They have passed on, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet their Maker; stiff, bereft of life, they rest in peace. If the Israelis hadn’t nailed Occupied Palestine to its perch, they would all be pushing up daisies.

The age of colonialism ended in about 1960; the process mostly happened within a few years, and was essentially complete within three decades. South Africa, the second-to-last settler colony, officially decolonized itself around 1990.

So what is it about Israel that allows it to persist as a fanatical, murderous settler-colony, vastly nastier than apartheid South Africa or French Algeria, in a post-colonial world?

Gilad Atzmon says that to answer that question, we need to take a very close, critical look at Jewish culture in general and Jewish identity politics in particular.

If there is a reasonable argument to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

But I don’t think there is.

I think it will be people following the trail Gilad blazed – people who discover that the persistence of a very peculiar and very nasty settler-colony in Palestine is largely due to the peculiarities of Jewish identity politics – who will, by ripping the mask off Zionism to show what it really is, shame the world in general and the Jewish community in particular into shutting down their settler colony in Occupied Palestine.

Currently, the sacred taboos and one-sided myths that surround this issue are protecting Zionism. Blast those taboos to smithereens, and the Wall will come down.

Like Joshua at the battle of Jerico, Gilad is heroically blasting the Wall – the wall that stops us from thinking as well as the Apartheid Wall in Occupied Palestine – with his saxophone as well as his pen.

One day the Wall will crumble.

And Gilad will be playing at the celebration.

Hope to see you there.


Bookmark and Share

Short URL:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Posted by on Mar 12 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Living, Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

8 Comments for “Why Hate Gilad Atzmon Pt. 2: “He’s WRONG!” (Or Is He?)”

  1. Love your sense of humor and your rational thoughts as well Mr Barrett.

  2. I wish we could just talk about God, or refer to God casually, without having to get into the big atheist argument every time. Can’t you people just leave it alone ever? For some people it’s as natural as breathing to consider God because it is part of our cultural upbringing. So let it go, okay?

    There is a group of people whose voices have been lost in all of this confusion of lies and it’s time they get a chance to be heard. The real, true members of the Tribe of Judah. It’s time to pay attention to what they are saying, here’s just one example but there are more examples posted on youtube…here:

    • According to the 1987 classic, “The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace”, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

      A stage three soul will see that a neighbor is everyone on the planet and not just those who think and look the same and are born in the same geographical location. Stage three’s are seekers, doubters, skeptics, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their “inner light.”

      Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform and the increasing wave of humanitarian secularism verses the bondage of religious dogma just may be the way to change the world as we now know it…”The Stages of the Soul and How Religiosity/Fundamentalism is holding up Evolution” @

  3. Great job, Kevin. The zionists know full well that if they want to argue that the Earth is flat they can’t do so using logic, reason, facts, supported history or egalitarian morals. All they can do is shoot the messenger, slander any opponent and destroy any argument before it gets started. They don’t have any other options.

    A philosophy as pernicious and deranged as zionism cannot be defended by normal means. The Jews aren’t stupid; they’ve tried every justification imaginable and so far, no-one’s buying it. “Hitler made us do it!” (wrong, Balfour Declaration came 6 years before the Bier Hall Putsch) “The Palestinians don’t want peace!” (absurd) “People without a land in a land without a people” (pure lies) “Palestine was never a country!” (as if Israel was and at least Palestina was recognized by all the contemporary cultures) etc. etc. etc. Lies can only be defended with more lies and it’s quite clear who the liars are.

    So now all the zionists can do is defame their opponents, as Gilad Atzmon is finding out. Hell, they’ve tried everything else.

  4. How diversionary to have ended such a thoughtful article of reason with the polarizing religious salutation, as if the outcome of such thoughtful discourse is potentially worthless, as subject to the will of some unknown supernatural being. I interpret this as disrespectful of the message of Gilad Atzmon, a message that calls into question the practices and the attitudes of a tribal group, whose very interpretation of some god’s will is at the heart of Gilad’s criticism – a criticism that requires deeper insights of the human mind and psyche. I’m disappointed in Dr. Barret on this choice. Yes, there is clash of religious notions in all of this. Should we reduce the research that Gilad is encouraging to an argument about whose god and which god’s will is worthy of providing rationalization and justification for ill-treatment of other. Is this a “my dad is bigger than your dad” end-game?

    I only ask that the message of Gilad Atzmon of questioning the political and socio-psychological underpinnings of Jewishness and Zionism not be undermined by such literary tactics.

    • I wish we could just talk about God, or refer to God casually, without having to get into the big atheist argument every time. Can’t you people just leave it alone ever? For some people it’s as natural as breathing to consider God because it is part of our cultural upbringing. So let it go, okay?

  5. Kevin, this is an incredible well thought piece. Thanks for taking the time, i learned a lot from you deconstruction. Peace G

  6. Very well said Dr. Barret.

    “Currently, the sacred taboos and one-sided myths that surround this issue are protecting Zionism. Blast those taboos to smithereens, and the Wall will come down”.

    Couldn’t agree more, I share the view. I mean, people can curse the Most High, but somethings are out of bounds to mere well-meant-discussion, why this?

    Good of you to stand up for an innocent man, and bringing sound reasoning to its good work.

    Gilad is a good man. It’s obvious that he wishes nobody harm.

Comments are closed


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE


  1. NEO – US-backed Regime Change in Georgia
  2. What passes for Justice in New York today: The case of Sean Dix
  3. Kerry tells Lavrov to ignore Obama’s Russian threat comment
  4. M.A.S.H. helps homeless veterans find housing
  5. US lied about 9/11 attacks to justify waging wars: Analyst
  6. RT: Sub Off Sweden May be Dutch
  7. Russia Today on Urals “Event”
  8. NEO – Stewart, Colbert and the upcoming Nazi Terrorist conference in NY City
  9. Mishap Over Russia
  10. Finally Some Really Good News
  11. Anti-Zionism Continues to Rise
  12. Putin: ‘US wants to subdue Russia, but no one did or ever will’
  13. Amazing Military Spouses Super Connect Helping U.S. Veterans
  14. NEO – USS Liberty Film Only a First Step
  15. More JFK mysteries solved: The second limo stop and holding back the Altgens6
  16. City to recognize ‘outstanding’ veterans
  17. Blue Gun Wednesday
  18. The “grassy knoll” rider and JFK limo back seat: Just how crowded was it?
  19. NEO – ISIL attacked Saudi Arabia
  20. VetLikeMe Weekly 10/16/2014
  1. Gennady & Lidiya Sevastyanov: Due to the capture of the Crimea and the war in Donbass the history of Russian is in the rewriting again now.
  2. John Kirby: Rich zionist/Jewish businessmen, neocons, Israeli "Art students" and removal men were up to their eyes in everything about 911, but that doesn't prove they did it. What we do know ...
  3. moneytalks: The american sheeple are under a 24/7 ILLuminati media subliminal semi-hypnotic spell conjured by the ruling oligarchy . The spell is designed to prevent the sheeple from straying away ...
  4. Simpleton: BTW-for all those now in double denial trying to deflect with even more denial, it was Cheney issuing stand-down orders as boss of NORAD on 911, and from the WH ...
  5. moneytalks: It has been noted that the US fedgov and Israel are two parts of the same ziojew entity . If you live in Charlotte NC then you are in ...

Veterans Today Poll

For over 60 years, US Taxpayers have been funding Israel, Palestine and Middle East. Are you happy with return on investment or would you prefer those monies be invested at home instead?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...