To Call A Spade A Spade [Silvia Cattori]

Silvia Cattori: As a jazz musician, what brought you to use your

pen as a weapon [1] against the country where you were born and
against your people?

Gilad Atzmon: For many years my music and writings

were not integrated at all. I became a musician when I was
seventeen and I took it up as a profession when I was
twenty four. Though I was not involved with, or interested
in politics when I lived in Israel, I was very much against
Israel’s imperial wars. I identified somehow with the left,
but later, when I started to grasp what the Israeli left was all
about, I could not find myself in agreement with anything it
claimed to believe in, and that is when I realised the crime
that was taking place in Palestine.

For me the Oslo Accord was the end of it because I realised

that Israel was not aiming towards reconciliation, or even
integration in the region, and that it completely dismissed
the Palestinian cause. I understood then that I had to leave
Israel. It wasn’t even a political decision — I just didn’t want
to be part of the Israeli crime anymore. In 1994 I moved to
the UK and I studied philosophy.

In 2001, at the time of the second Intifada, I began to

understand that Israel was the ultimate aggressor and was
also the biggest threat to world peace. I realised the extent of
the involvement and the role of world Jewry as I analysed
the relationships between Israel and the Jewish State,
between Israel and the Jewish people around the world, and
between Jews and Jewishness.

I then realised that the Jewish “left” was not very different at
all from the Israeli “left”. I should make it clear here that I
differentiate between “Left ideology”— a concept that is
inspired by universal ethics and a genuine vision of equality
– and the “Jewish Left”, a tendency or grouping that is there
solely to maintain tribal interests that have very little, if
anything, to do with universalism, tolerance and equality.

Silvia Cattori: Would you argue that there is a discrepancy

between Jews and left?

Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. I should explain here that I never

talk about Jews as a people. I differentiate between Jews (the
people) Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the culture).
In my work, I am only elaborating on the third category, i.e.
Jewishness. Also it should be understood that I differentiate
between the tribal “Jewish Left”, and Leftists who simply
happen to be Jewish. Indeed, I would be the first to admit
that there are many great leftists and humanists who
happen to be of Jewish origin. However those Jews who
operate under a “Jewish banner” seem to me to be Zionist fig
leafs: they are solely there to convey an image of “Jewish
pluralism”. In fact, when I grasped the full role of the “Jewish
left” I realised that I may end up fighting alone against the
strongest power around.

Silvia Cattori: Do you fight alone?

Gilad Atzmon: More or less alone. I like to fight alone; I

take responsibility. Along the years, there have been a lot
attempts to destroy the few of us who have stood up against
Jewish power. I found myself in trouble for supporting
people like Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen, for standing up for
their right to think freely and to express their opinions and
ideas openly. I remember one of those infamous “Jewish
Left” activists telling me, “listen Gilad, once you shun Shamir
we will let you be”. My answer was simple: I was not about to
bargain with intellectual integrity. For me, freedom of
speech is an iron rule — I would never silence anyone.

Within the liberation movement and the solidarity

movement, I do not actually believe that we have any
intellectuals. And why we do not have intellectuals?
Because in the name of “Political Correctness”, we have
managed to destroy every single English speaking creative
mind within our movement.
What we see here may be an endemic problem with “the
Left”. To speak in broad (or rather Germanic philosophical)
terms, “the Left” is “forgetful of Being” — Instead of
understanding what Being in the world is all about, it tries
to suggest to us what being in the world ought to be. “The
Left” has adopted a preaching mode that has led to a severe
form of alienation, and this is probably why “the Left” has
failed to come to terms with, fully understand, and grasp
the significance and power of Islam. And this is why “the
Left” is totally irrelevant to the current revolution in the
Middle East. As we know by now, “the Left’s’ tolerance”,
somehow evaporates when it comes to Islam and Muslims. I
find it very problematic.

Silvia Cattori: Can you explain why the Left is irrelevant?

Gilad Atzmon: Let us look at the current events in the Arab

and Muslim world: where is “the Left”? All those years they
were trying to tell us, the “public will rise”, but where is the
left now? Is it in Egypt? Is it in Libya or Bahrain? We hear
about the Muslim Brotherhood, the middle class, the young
Arabs and Muslims – indeed, we are hearing about
anything but “the Left”. Did you see any interesting Left
wing analysis of the regional emerging Intifada? Not really.
Recently, I was searching for an analysis of the Egyptian
uprising in a famous Socialist paper. I found one article — I
then realised that the words “Islam” and “Muslim” did not
appear in the article even once, yet the word “class”
appeared no less than nineteen times. What we see here
then, is actually an example of the ultimate form of
detachment from humanity, humanism and the human
condition.

But I take it further: where is ‘the Left’ in Europe? Where is

“the Left” in America? Why can’t they stand up for the
Muslims? Why can’t they bond with, or make allies with
millions of Muslim immigrants, people who also happen to
be amongst the new European working class? I will mention
here what I consider to be a most crucial insight: It is an idea
I borrowed from the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.
Lacan contends that love can be realised as making love to
oneself via the other. The “Left solidarity” with Palestine in
my opinion can be similarly grasped as making love to
ourselves at the expense of the Palestinians. We do not want
them to be Muslims. We tell them to be democratic — as
long as they don’t vote Hamas. We tell them to be
progressive, “like us”. I just can’t make up my mind whether
such an attitude is rude, or simply pathetic.

Recently I came across a critical Trotsky-ite take on my

work. The argument against me was as follows: “Gilad is
wrong because he manages to explain Zionism without
colonialism; he explains the holocaust without fascism. He even
explains the recession, the global economic disaster, without
capitalism.”

I couldn’t agree more. We do not need “working class politics”

anymore. The old 19Th century clichés can be dropped —
and the sooner the better. In order to explain why our world
is falling apart, we just have to be brave enough to say what
we think, to admit what we see, to call a spade a spade.

Actually, I would love to see “the Left” resurrecting itself.

Yet, for that to happen, it must first remind itself what
equality and tolerance really mean, because for “the Left” to
be meaningful again, it must first grasp the true meaning of
“love your neighbour.”

Silvia Cattori: When we listen to your political comments we

forget that you are primarily a musician.

Gilad Atzmon: The truth of the matter is that I am not

actually interested in politics — I am not a member of any
party and I do not care about, or seek any political power. I
am not interested in the binary opposition between “left”
and “right,” and I do not care about the banal dichotomy
between “progressive” and “reactionary”. And let’s face it
from a Marxist point of view I am associated with the most
reactionary forces: I support Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah, and I support Hamas. What do you want more
than that! I am the ultimate reactionary being and I am
delighted and proud about it all.

Silvia Cattori: You are really a free spirit.

Gilad Atzmon: That is because I am not political. I am an

artist and a musician; it is very simple.
Silvia Cattori: We can hardly imagine what would you be if you
had stayed in Israel?

Gilad Atzmon: It would be impossible to imagine.

Silvia Cattori: Are you still going to Israel?

Gilad Atzmon: Never. I will visit the Holly Land when it is

Palestine.

Silvia Cattori: Are you an exception among Israelis?

Gilad Atzmon: It is very interesting; when it comes to the

“Jewish left” abroad, I know very few Jews whom I can trust
on that level of commitment. They always go along with
you, but then as soon as you question the tribal bond and
their own role within the “Jewish universe” you will be
stabbed in the back. Very rarely does one come across
courageous Jews who are willing to engage in deep self-
reflection: I refer here to people like Paul Eisen, Jeff
Blankfort, Norman Finkelstein, Hajo Meyer and Evelyn
Hecht Galinsky. In Israel however, it is different. You have
quite a few people who are actually brave beyond belief.
They are really putting their life on the line. These are the
people who send us information about the army, about
military secrets, about war crimes and names of war
criminals. So there are quite a few Israelis who are doing
incredible work.
Silvia Cattori: Is writing on political matters and composing
music a way for you to contribute to a better world and to beauty?
Is one inseparable from the other?

Gilad Atzmon: At the moment I am trying to establish a

continuum between my music and my writing. I believe
that unlike our politicians — whether they are right wing
politicians, conservative politicians, left politicians, all of
whom are seeking power — artists are searching for beauty.
And I believe it is beauty that can unite people.

I will tell you something that I really plan to write about.

For many years our so-called “political analysts” have been
talking about Israel being a “settler state” and Zionism being
a “colonial project”. But what kind of colonialism is it? Is it an
accurate comparison?

For if Israel is a “settler state” – then 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, and the Boston Tea Party is a good example of that. But,
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. Moreover, native Hebraic
Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to
any motherland except their own state.

Silvia Cattori: However, for some of the strongest advocates of

the Palestinian rights, such as Ilan Pappe, Israel is a colonial
State. They put forward this argument to challenge Israeli
policies.

Gilad Atzmon: I am afraid that most activists and

academics cannot tell the entire truth on this sensitive
matter. Maybe no one can survive telling the truth. Indeed,
we are daily terrorised by different measures from the
thought police. I am convinced that most of the scholars
who insist upon calling Israel a “settler state” are fully aware
of the problems entangled with the “colonial paradigm”. They
must be aware of the uniqueness of the Zionist project. It is
indeed true that Zionism manifests some symptoms that are
synonymous with colonialism — however that is not
enough: Zionism is inherently a racially oriented
“homecoming” project driven by spiritual enthusiasms that
are actually phantasmic. It intrinsically lacks many of the
“necessary” elements that we understand as comprising
colonialism, and cannot be defined in solely materialist
terms.

It seems to me that here, we come across a crucial problem

of understanding and analysis within our movement, and
within Western intellectual discourse in general. Our
academics are suppressed, and scholarship is silenced, for
within the tyranny of political correctness, our academics
are forced to primarily consider the boundaries of the
discourse — they first examine carefully what they are
allowed to say – and then they fill in the empty spaces,
formulating theories or narratives.

This pattern is unfortunately common. Yet, such an

approach and method is foreign to my understanding of
truth-seeking and true scholarship.

It is crucial to mention at this point that I do not claim to

know the truth. I just say what I believe to be the truth. If I
am wrong, I welcome people to point it out to me.

It appears to me that “the Left” mislead us and itself by

depicting Zionism solely as a colonial project. The “Left”
likes the colonial paradigm because it locates Zionism nicely
within their ideology. It also leads us to believe that the
colonial/post-colonial political model provides some
answers and even operative solutions; following the
colonial template, we first equate Israel with South Africa,
and then we implement a counter-colonial strategy, such as
the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions).

Yet, whilst I fully support all of those actions, they seem to

be in some regards, not entirely effective at all. The BDS has
not in fact, led to any metamorphic change within Israeli
society. If anything, it has led to further intensified
radicalisation within the right in Israel. Why has the BDS
not worked yet? The answer is simple: It is because Israel is
not at all entirely a colonial entity - as we historically
understand that term - and it needs to be understood that its
power and ties with the West are maintained by the
strongest lobbies around the world.

So, if the Left wants to stop Israel for real, then it must
openly question the notion of Jewish Power and its role
within Western politics and media. But can the Left do it? I
am not so sure.

Let us return now to further comparison of Israel with the

colonial model — Israel is also markedly different, for
example, from earlier colonial states such as South Africa,
because Israel implements genocidal tactics. South Africa
was indeed brutal — but it stopped short of throwing white
phosphorous on its indigenous population. South Africa
was a settler state, and was exploiting its indigenous
population: but it wanted to keep them alive and oppressed.
The Jewish state, on the other hand — would much prefer to
wake up one morning to find out that all the Palestinians
had disappeared, because Israel is driven by a Talmudic
racist ideology. For those who have not realised it yet, the
Zionism that presented itself initially as a secular project
was, in fact, a crude attempt to transform the Bible into a
land registry document, and an attempt to turn God into a
nasty estate agent. It should be understood that Zionism
follows a completely different political operative mode to
any other settler state, and the colonial paradigm is simply
incapable of fully addressing that.
But here is the good news: interestingly enough, it has been
artists rather than “intellectuals” who have been brave
enough to speak out. At a certain stage they started to
equate images of Palestine with those of the Jewish
holocaust, and it was artists who were brave enough to
juxtapose Palestinian kids with Jewish ones.

Silvia Cattori: Yes, but can we really compare the two?

Gilad Atzmon: Why not? We compare between two

ideologies, between two racist ethnocentric precepts. It was
the artists who came up with that simple and essential truth.
It was the artists who dismantled the colonial paradigm in
just a one swift move. Seemingly our artists are well ahead
of our “intellectuals”.

Silvia Cattori: I would like further understand your objection to

those who consider Israel a colonialist State. Already in the sixties,
South Africa severed institutional relations with Great Britain
and had withdrawn from the Commonwealth. Thus there was no
more a "motherland" outside South Africa. And yet the Black
population fought the “settlers” who had installed the apartheid.
In that sense, can we not consider that there is a similarity with
the present struggle of the Palestinians for their rights against
Jewish settlers who settled on their land, and that this struggle is,
in a way, a struggle against colonialism? It is true that white
South Africans did not implement murderous tactics against the
natives. Is it because you’re focusing on this point and
emphasising the comparison with the Nazi holocaust that you put
forward the uniqueness of the Zionist project, instead of
colonialism?

Gilad Atzmon: The big question I try to raise here is: why
can’t we practice coherent scholarship? The issues
surrounding the appropriation of the colonial paradigm is
obviously just one example. We are subject to a lethal
tyranny of political correctness.

You are right suggesting that some settler states drift away
from their respective motherlands; however, Israel didn’t
drift away from any motherland because it has never had a
motherland. Zionism was never a colonial project in that
sense — The colonial paradigm is a spin.

The big question to ask is; why are “the Left” and Jewish
anti-Zionists desperately clinging to the colonial paradigm?
And here is my answer:

1. It is safe; it makes the criticism of the Jewish state look

legitimate.
2. It conveys the hope of a resolution: If Israel is indeed, just
a settler state like any of the other earlier historical examples
it will eventually assimilate into the region and become a
“normal” state.

Where is the problem in such an approach, you might ask?

Well, it is pretty obvious — this entire discourse is actually
completely irrelevant to the Zionist disease. It is like treating
a patient who has bowel cancer with some strong diarrhea
pills — just because the symptoms are slightly similar.

Disastrously enough, this is the level of our left-intellectual

discourse at the present time.

Silvia Cattori: But those within the solidarity movement, who

denounce “Israeli colonialism”, criticise Israeli racist agenda and
support the right to return— aren’t they saying exactly the same
thing as you are saying?

Gilad Atzmon: To start with, we are indeed part of the same

movement, and I guess that we are driven by the same
ethical intuitions.

However, there is a clear difference between us, because by

employing the “colonial paradigm” their intention is to
communicate the idea that the Jewish national project is
entirely reminiscent of a 19Th century national trend. This is
to say that, just like most other European settler nations, the
Jews happened to celebrate their “national symptoms” — it is
just that they did so after everyone else.

The “colonial paradigm” is then, invoked to also support the

idea that Israel is an apartheid state, and pretty much like
most other earlier colonial settings. My approach is totally
different, because I would argue that Israel and Zionism is a
unique project in history, and the relationship between Israel
and the operation of the Jewish Lobbies in the West is also
totally unique in history. I would even take it further, and
say that whilst the Palestinians are indeed at the fore front
of a battle for humanity, the fact is that we are all subject to
Zionist global politics. According to my model, the credit
crunch is in fact a Zionist “punch”. The war in Iraq is a
Zionist war. I would argue forcefully that Zionism has a
long time ago moved from the “promised land” narrative into
the “promised planet” nightmare. I also argue that it would be
impossible to bring peace to the world unless we confront
the true meaning of contemporary Jewish ideology.

Interestingly enough, many of those who enthusiastically

support the “colonial paradigm”, were also very quick to
denounce the work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
on the Israeli Lobby. If Mearsheimer and Walt are correct,
and I think that they are, then it is Jewish power which we
have to confront.

And this is exactly what the “Jewish Left” and Jewish

intelligentsia are there to prevent us from doing.

Silvia Cattori: Your views clearly oppose intellectuals such as

Bernard-Henry Lévy who support Western expansionism and
Israeli policies. For you Israel is the danger. Don’t you think that
some people see there an element of provocation?

Gilad Atzmon: Provocation is not a bad thing. I wrote an

article recently about Bernard-Henry Lévy. The man is lame
beyond belief. We have more than a few “Bernard-Henri
Levys” here in Britain too, Jews who portray a false image of
scholarship. And as it happens, we intellectually smash
them, one by one. We expose them for what they are. By the
way, Norman Finkelstein did a great job with Dershowitz.
We should not be scared about it all.

Also, I think that by the time people don’t have enough

money to put petrol in the car let alone buy bread, they will
start to look at who is to blame, and when that happens, the
Israeli State and its relentless lobbies will emerge at the top
of the list. I think that some people are starting to see it now,
already. The change will be drastic. I guess that in
retrospect, some people can look at my writing now, and
admit that I was warning the Jewish lobbies for years.

Silvia Cattori: What differentiates Gilad Atzmon from those who

say, "I am a Jewish anti-Zionist"; "We are Jews for peace", etc, yet
always highlighting their tribal identity?

Gilad Atzmon: It is very simple: for me, the fight for peace
is a fight for a universal cause. For me, to support the
Palestinians is an ethical necessity. And if it is a universal
cause and an ethical necessity, I do not see any reason to
fight it “as a Jew”, “as a man”, or “as a jazz artist”. When I
come across those who call themselves “Jews for peace” and
“Jews for justice”, I stand up and say “what do you really mean
by calling yourself a ‘Jew’? Are you religious?” When a Torah
Jew says he identifies as a Jew I know what he refers to.
When Torah Jews say “we are religious Jews and we support
Palestine in the name of our faith”, I say “go ahead, you have my
support”.
But when secular Jews tell me that they work for Palestine
in the name of their Jewish values, I must ask them “What
are your ‘Jewish secular values’”? I have studied and carefully
considered the subject, and, as embarrassing as it may
sound, there is no such thing as a “Jewish secular value
system”.

Those who refer to such ideas are either lying, misleading

others, or even misleading themselves.

Silvia Cattori: If I understood well, those who identify

themselves as “anti-Zionist Jews” or “Jews for peace” believe that
this makes their voice louder than others’ voice.

Gilad Atzmon: For sure, and that is a valid point. But again,
I still have some reservations, because if I say “I am a Jew for
peace,” and I believe that this is enough to make my voice
more important than yours, what it really means is that I am
still consciously celebrating my chosen-ness. And isn’t that
exactly the problem we have with Zionism?

So, fundamentally, Jewish anti-Zionism is still just another

manifestation of Jewish tribal supremacy. It seems peculiar
that peace activists, who claim to be universalist leftists, end
up operating in racially oriented cells.

Silvia Cattori: Is this consciously a way to humiliate non Jewish

people?
Gilad Atzmon: That is possible; but I do not think that Jews
who succumb to Jewish tribal politics are really conscious of
the effect it has on others.

Silvia Cattori: Israelis who describe themselves as ex-Israelis, ex-

Jews, are very rare. Are you the only one?

Gilad Atzmon: I may as well be the only one. However, I do

not really talk as an ex-Jew — I talk as Gilad Atzmon. I
avoid collective banners. When you read me, you read what
I think. You see it for what it is, and you either agree, or you
don’t agree. I do not need flags or phantasmic identities to
hide behind.

Silvia Cattori: Few famous artists have had the courage to stand
up openly and firmly for victims of Israeli oppression. We know
that, in general, well known people are afraid to be placed on the
"anti-Semitic" list. Rogers Waters has dared to break the taboo.
David Gilmour, Robert Wyatt, followed. What do you say to those
who are still scared?

Gilad Atzmon: I believe that the only way to liberate

ourselves is to begin to talk. The only way to fight is to
express ourselves openly. I have taken that risk and if I can
do it, then I think that everyone can do it. I have paid a price
in that my career has suffered a little, and I make less
money. But I can look at myself with pride.

Silvia Cattori: To those who would argue that your political

positions are, let’s say, “borderline”, what do you answer?
Gilad Atzmon: I do not actually know what “borderline”
means. For years I encountered endless attempts to silence
me, but they all proved to be counter effective because if
anything, the repressive measures taken against me brought
many more people to read my materials, and encouraged
more people to think things through for themselves. I was
accused by Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists of being racist
and anti Semitic, but embarrassingly enough for them, not a
single anti Semitic or racist argument has ever been found in
my many papers. On the contrary, there is an anti racist
attitude that stands at the very core of my criticism of
Jewish identity politics and Jewish ideology. I have been
writing now for ten years, and for all those years, I have had
a note on my web site saying “If you find something racist or
anti-Semitic in my writings, let me know. I will apologise and
remove it immediately”. And not a single person has ever
come up with anything.

As I mentioned before, I differentiate between Jews (the

people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the
ideology). I am against Jewish ideology — not against
Jewish people or Judaism. If this makes me into a “borderline
case”, then I will have to live with it.

Silvia Cattori: Your voice helps people to understand what Israel

is all about. In general, covering this subject is not easy. However,
should not journalists take more responsibilities in exposing the
power games that devastate the Middle East? What have been the
responsibilities in this regard of Western media?
Gilad Atzmon: I will be very honest with you; Western
media has failed all the way. Western media has betrayed
us. It has failed to understand that Palestine is not that far
from our “Western haven”. The media have failed to see that
we are all Palestinians — Palestinians are at the forefront of
the battle against evil, but the rest of us are fighting in
exactly the same battle, and we are all confronting the same
enemy. What happened in America with the credit crunch
and evolved into economic turmoil is the direct outcome of
global Zionist politics.

America invests its tax payers’ money maintaining the

Jewish State and it launched its people into a war to “save
Israel”. Consequently, we are all facing a financial disaster,
and as we speak, the Arab masses are rising: they demand
liberation, and they want an immediate end to the Zio-
political grip. What you see now in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain
and Yemen is there to prepare us all, and we may well see
the same thing unfolding soon in Berlin, Paris, London,
Madrid, Barcelona, and New York City, because we all face
the same enemy.

Silvia Cattori: I wonder whether your readers understand what

you refer to when talking about Zionism and global Zionism.

Gilad Atzmon: That is indeed a very crucial point. You may

find it hard to believe but even Israelis do not understand
what Zionism is all about. Zionism is the belief that Jews
(like all other people) should be entitled to celebrate their
right for a national homeland, and this homeland is Zion
(Palestine). Though this idea sounds almost innocent, it is
entangled with very problematical ethical issues, because
Zionism has morphed into political reality in the shape of a
Jewish State, built entirely at the expense of the ethnically
cleansed and abused Palestinian people. Moreover, along
the years, the Jewish State has been utilising some very
powerful lobbies and think tanks in our Western capitals;
and these bodies promote global Zionist interests such as
endless confrontation with Islam and the Muslim world.

While early Zionism presented itself as a promise to redeem

all the Diaspora Jews by means of settlement in the so-called
“promised land”, in the last three decades Zionism has
changed its spots in some regards — The Jewish State
actually prefers some of the Diaspora Jews to stay exactly
where they are so they can mount pressure on their
respective governments for the sake of what they interpret
as their Jewish interests.

The role of Jewish lobbies such as of AIPAC, J-street (USA)

and Conservative Friends of Israel (UK) is far more
advantageous to Israel than any wave of Jewish
immigration to Palestine could be. This transformation in
Zionist thought signals a shift from the local to the global,
and therefore, Zionism should no longer be solely perceived
as a demand for a Jewish home in the “promised land” —
Rather it must be grasped as a global operation, seeking a
safe haven for the Jews within the context of “promised
planet.”
The Israelis and their allies know very well why they
promote Islamophobia. But what is Islamophobia? What,
and who, does it serve? It serves Zio-centric Capitalist
interests. Islamophobia is the true face of Hasbara (Israeli
propaganda). It is there to make sure that Israel’s “survival
war” is actually a Western war.

This is obviously misleading, and for the sake of Western

interests, shunning Israel immediately would be the right
thing to do.

Silvia Cattori: When do you see the emergence of Islamophobia

and what was the cause?

Gilad Atzmon: That is a good question — historically, it

probably first arose in the seventies, soon after the energy
crisis. I think that by 1973, we could clearly detect the first
signs of modern political and institutional anti-Muslim
antipathy as the Western public began to realise the strategic
role of the Middle East. The shift towards a “popular anti
Muslim culture” was exacerbated further by the success of
Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”, and I would argue that
by 9.11. 2001, the Western public was primed for an
outbreak of “Muslim bashing”. I will never forget Ehud
Barak being interviewed on that day, spreading bile and
Islamophobic accusations on every Western media outlet.
For Israeli Hasbara agitators, 9/11 was proof of the “unified
ethos” shared between Israel and the (Western) Goyim.
I would like to elaborate more on your question regarding
Islamophobia. I realised some time ago that the general
acceptability of certain minorities can always be measured
by the popularity -or unpopularity- of its “self-haters”. The
growing popularity of Muslim “self-haters” in the 1970-90’s
era could have suggested that a wave of anti Islamic feelings
was on its way to our shore. Similarly, the antagonism
towards Jewish “self-haters” in the last decade confirms the
success and influence of Jewish lobbies within media and
politics. I guess that the rise of my popularity certainly
indicates that the tide has indeed turned. We can firmly
anticipate a tidal wave of resentment towards Israel.

Silvia Cattori: What is fascinating about you is your freedom of

speech. You can’t stand the truth being “half told”. Isn’t it the
case?

Gilad Atzmon: I think that is a good way to put it. I have

developed a severe allergy to spins and deceitful narratives.
As I said before I do not claim to know the truth; however, I
am pretty effective in detecting lies, ploys and diversions.
Being a philosopher I am also effective in raising questions
and deconstructing inconsistencies. I am puzzled by the
activists around us who believe that we can beat Zionism by
sketching out some phantasmic narratives of resistance. I
honestly believe that truth-seeking and total openness will
prevail. If you want to grasp the growing popularity of my
writing, I guess that this is what it is — instead of playing
political games I really try to get to the bottom of it all. I try
to understand what it is that drives and fuels Zionism,
Israel, Jewish lobbying, neoconservative expansionist wars
and even Jewish anti Zionism.

And I guess that by now, you realise that I identify Jewish

Ideology — rather than Jews or Judaism — as the crux of
these precepts and political views.

Silvia Cattori: Thank you.