Atzmon’s anti-Semitism, Part II

Early in the essay which finally caused the Atzmon controversy to boil over on Indymedia UK, Atzmon says the following:

Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle. For instance, the deadly battle between the ‘righteous’ David and the ‘evil’ Goliath personalises the struggle between the ‘good’ Israelites and the ‘bad’ Philistines. Though the Biblical specific tale could be understood in a mere literary terms, the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning.

One of the distinguishing actions of the bigot is to attack one specific ethnicity for a weakness all humans share. A Klansman in the US, for example, would attack African-Americans for being lazy and stupid, as if laziness and stupidity were not general commodities on display, all too sadly, in every culture on earth.

Atzmon begins his anti-Semitic essay with a similar form of attack. History shows that the tendency to simplify conflicts is universal, but Atzmon particularizes it as a weakness of one particular group. Nowhere in the essay does he indicate that the weakness in question exists anywhere except among his targetted group.

Which group? Initially, the Israelis. However, apparently unsatisfied with merely attacking the Israelis in a bigotted manner for having their share of a universal human weakness, Atzmon then names his real target: Jews.

Just to make certain that we grasp his point, Atzmon then writes:“However, Israelis are not alone here. The tendency to personalise and concretise history is rather common amongst Jews.”

I respond, the tendency to particularize general human characteristics to specific ethnic groups (“the Judaic worldview”) is extremely common among bigots, and this is exactly what Atzmon has done, in a clear display of his anti-Semitism. One hardly has to limit oneself to inspecting “the Judaic worldview” to see “history and ethics … reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle.” Yet to him this kind of oversimplification is a characteristically Jewish thing.


One Response to Atzmon’s anti-Semitism, Part II

  1. geniza says:

    Later in the essay, Atzmon finally gets around to noticing that what he’s treated eariler as an exclusive Jewish failing in fact affects a broader population, but the way he does so is telling:

    “Thanks to the Neocons and their tremendous current influence within the Anglo-American political realm, we are all subject to some oversimplification and personalisation of almost every Western conflict.”

    Note the difference? To paraphrase Malvolio, some people — i.e. the Jews — are born to oversimplification and personalization, and other people — i.e. the rest of the world — have that oversimplification and personalization thrust upon them.

    And who is doing the thrusting? The neocons, by which, Atzmon clarifies, he means the Zionists:

    “Within the Neocon’s Zionised war, every ideological conflict becomes a personal ‘targeted assassination’ plot. May I remind us all that before Neocons launched their pretty successful attempt to Zionise America and Britain …”

    Pity the poor non-Jew, Atzmon argues, who has had the good fortune not to be Jewish and therefore subject to this inherent Jewish flaw, but instead has it inescapably imposed upon him all the same by the machinations of Zionists.

    A commenter to Atzmon provides this perfectly justified reply: “What are these anti-semitic rantings doing on IMC?? Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite. It is a mark of utter political confusion to not have deleted this racist crap immediately!”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: