News

 

Thank God for the Jewish Chronicle

by Gilad Atzmon

As always, the London Jewish Chronicle (JC) is providing us with an accurate insight into Jewish influence within the media and beyond. The JC is desperate to stop my book, The Wandering Who -- and it is also foolish enough to disclose its tactics, openly revealing to us the pressure which some elements within the Jewish community are willing to mount on Britain’s leading newspapers and other outlets. 

This weekend The JC seems to be particularly frustrated, explaining to their concerned readers that “Britain's largest book distribution database company has said it cannot withdraw The Wandering Who unless the title is found to have breached race hate legislation”

The JC complains that “in the book Atzmon discusses his belief that ‘the Holocaust religion was well-established’ before the Nazis carried out aspects of the Shoah including the Final Solution and Kristallnacht.”

The JC is absolutely correct here. That is exactly what I am discussing. And yet, the question is, what is wrong with doing so? Is it racist or anti-Semitic? And indeed, I also insist that trauma is inherent to Jewish Culture.  Here is, for instance, an old Jewish joke from the 19^th century

A Jewish Telegram:

‘Get Worried, details to follow’.

In ‘The Wandering Who’ I contend that Jewish identity politics is defined by a unique condition, namely, ‘Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder’. It is the ‘future trauma’ that shapes the Jewish present and ideology.  

The JC is also concerned with the following quote: "It is more than likely that 'Jews' do not have a centre or headquarters. It is more than likely that they aren't aware of their particular role within the entire system, the way an organ is not aware of its role within the complexity of an organism."

And yet I am puzzled by their concern: what is exactly wrong with the above? If anything, it suggests that there are no Jewish conspiracies, and that Jews as people are actually innocent of the sinister associations of such.

Or, does the JC prefer to argue otherwise?  Would The JC insist that Lord Levy knew exactly what he was doing when he was the leading fundraiser for a government that took Britain into an illegal war? Does the JC prefer to argue that Neocons David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen knew exactly what they were doing when they advocated the same war on every  British press outlet that was foolish enough to let their voice be heard? 

I actually seem to be slightly kinder to Aaronovitch, Cohen, Levy, Saban, Wolfowitz, Freidman, Sharon, Peres, Livni, Greenspan, Foxman and many others: I am happy to agree that they were hijacked by a lethal ideology or culture rather than being consciously sinister.

The Guardian of British Jews

I also learned from the JC that “A Guardian spokeswoman said that the way its books were advertised online would be reviewed following complaints about The Wandering Who.”

I think that The Guardian should indeed review its policy -- and  the sooner the better. When I settled in this country seventeen years ago  the ‘Left’ paper was regarded by many as the ‘guardian of the truth’, and yet it seems as if, in the last few years, this paper has deteriorated into a guardian of Zionist interests. This, explains for instance,  The Guardian’s  dubious relationship with Wiki leaks, and it explains why the paper failed to publish leaks concerning Israel. In a recent Counterpunch expose, Jonathan Cook elaborated on the Guardian as an increasingly  Dangerous Cult.

However, I still want to believe that The Guardian will find within itself the powers to liberate itself from its current masters, for now, more than ever, we need in this country a brave, egalitarian critical outlet rather than yet another Zionist submissive mouthpiece.

Anne,  Shlomo and Me. 

And now here is the good news: it seems as if the JC/Guardian  joint efforts to stop ‘The Wandering Who’ have been  totally counterproductive, for according to Amazon, The Wandering Who is number 2 on the ‘Bestsellers in Religious History of Judaism’ list.

This morning, number 1 is Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl; number 2 is The Wandering Who; Number 3 is Anne Frank Again (different edition)  and Number 4 is Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People. It is not a coincidence. As it happens, The Wandering Who is there to locate Anne Frank  within the context of the phantasmic invention of the Jewish people.

By now, it should be clear to both The Guardian and the JC that their joint attempt has failed. But far more interesting  is the fact that their failure is just another symptom of their growing intellectual irrelevance.

If some Jewish people still insist on regarding themselves as ‘the people of the book’, they should stop wasting their time, and they should start to engage in a dialogue with my text rather than trying to burn it. If Jews insist that I am misguided and wrong, they would be better off showing some tolerance and joining in the open debate.

I wish them luck -- but I don’t hold my breath.  

 

You can now order The Wandering Who on Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk