We often see attacks against pro Palestinian activists by zionists, that is to be expected. But, too often we see those attacks coming supposedly from Palestinians and other members of the Islamic community. Most recent was one written by Jonathan Azaziah, an Iraqi-American Muslim poet, activist, analyst, writer and journalist from Brooklyn, NY, currently residing in Florida. 
Azaziah recently penned a two-part attack against Uri Avnery. In order to understand why I am coming to Avnery’s defence, in all fairness, Azaziah’s essays should be read. The first part, The Case Of Uri Avnery I: “Shukran, Israel” Analyzed And Refuted, can be read HERE.
The second part, The Case Of Uri Avnery II: Hasbara, Supremacism And The Future Of Solidarity, is HERE.
As is often the case when comparing zionism to Judaism, we also find comparisons to anti Semitism and the pro Palestinian activists. We see attacks on Jews who might be involved in the pro Palestinian Movement simply because they are Jews. I would imagine that for many Palestinians that have been suffering at the hands of the zionists for over six decades it might be difficult to trust the motives behind a Jewish person that claims to be sympathetic to their cause. It should be realised, and accepted that there are many Jewish people, including Israelis, that are very much involved in the struggle to free Palestine. I am afraid that Azaziah falls into the trap set by the zionists themselves in attempting to discredit Avnery simply because he is a Jewish Israeli. As a responsible, pro Palestinian journalist he should be above falling for the zionist lies.
This photo collage was posted in the second part of the essay….
The Palestine Solidarity Movement is so busy paying its respects to the propaganda-ridden “chosen” holocaust, it is failing to adequately fight for Palestine.
The above is a lie to discredit those Jews involved in the struggle. Nothing but pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism. It is exactly a tactic that the zionists themselves would want exploited as to discredit the entire pro Palestinian Movement.
The lies, the quotes out of context by Avnery found throughout the essay do the same. After a long lifetime in the struggle, both as an activist and a pro Palestinian voice in the Israeli Knesset, Avnery deserves honour, not discredit. In his own words, you can see what type of man he is through his description of another great Jewish (Israeli) person…
Reluctant Prophet 
By Uri Avnery

On Monday, I was honored to receive the Leibowitz Prize for “life’s work”, the prize established by the Yesh Gvul soldiers’ peace organization. I was unable to prepare a speech, so I spoke off the cuff and have to reconstruct my remarks from memory. (The laudation speech by the Nobel Prize laureate, Prof Ada Yonat, was far too laudatory for me to distribute.)


First, I wish to thank Yesh Gvul for establishing this prize. Then I would like to thank the distinguished jury, who were so gracious as to award the prize to me and to Hagit Ofran, the granddaughter of Prof. Leibowitz, whose work in monitoring the settlements I have admired for years. And then I want to thank all of you for coming to this ceremony.

Yet at this moment I think of the one who is not here, and whose absence is so unjust: my wife, Rachel. She was a full partner in all I did during the last 58 years, and should have been awarded half the prize – at the very least. She would have been delighted to be here.

When I entered this building, I was greeted by a stormy right-wing demonstration. I was grievously offended to be told that it was not directed against me, but against my friend Muhammad Bakri, the Arab actor who so angered the fascists with his film “Jenin, Jenin”. At this moment he is playing in Frederico Garcia Lorca’s “The House of Bernarda Alba” next door. Probably he deserves this demonstration, but nevertheless I still feel deeply insulted.

I ADMIRED and loved Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

I admired him for his penetrating logic. Whenever he applied it to any problem, it was a beauty to behold. Nothing could withstand it. Often, listening to his words, I asked myself enviously: “Now, why didn’t I think of that?”

I loved him, because of his unshakably moral attitude. For him, the moral obligation of the individual human being was above everything else.

Immediately after the 1967 war and the beginning of the occupation, he prophesied that we would become a nation of work gang supervisors and secret service agents.

Indeed, I always thought of him as Yeshayahu II, the heir of the Biblical Yeshayahu. (Yeshayahu is the Hebrew form of Isaiah.) When I told him this, he got angry. “People don’t understand the meaning of the word,” he complained, “In European languages, a prophet is a person who can foretell the future. But the Hebrew prophets were people who transmitted the Word of God!” Leibowitz, though orthodox and a kippah wearer, did not think of himself in that way.

Like all great men and women, he was a person with deep contradictions. I struggled to understand how a thinker of total rationality could be religious. He explained to me that a person who strictly fulfils all the 613 commandments of the Jewish religion can be completely rational – because religion exists on an altogether different level. As a professor of several wildly divergent disciplines (philosophy, chemistry, biochemistry, medicine), he did not let science and religion encroach on one another.

Once, when somebody told him that the Holocaust had stopped him believing in God, he replied: “then you did not believe in God in the first place.”

STANDING HERE in this hall, I feel some remorse for my part in the utterly absurd fact that he failed to receive the Israel Prize, the highest distinction the establishment can award. It happened in 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister. Fresh winds were blowing (or so it seemed) and the official Jury decided – at long last – to award Leibowitz the respected prize.

As it so happened, I was organizing at the time a public meeting of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. I called Leibowitz and asked him if he would come and speak.

I must add here that I was always keen to have him at our meetings, for two reasons. First, he was a captivating speaker. Second, when Leibowitz was due to appear, the hall – however big it might be – was always filled to the last seat, the stairs and the windowsills. (However, I always arranged things in such a way that I would speak after him. For good reason: when he rose, he would cut all the speeches of his predecessors to pieces. Using his formidable powers of analysis, he proved that everything they had said was absolute nonsense.)

When I asked him this time, he readily agreed to speak, under one condition: he would speak only about one subject, the duty of soldiers to refuse to serve in the occupied territories.

“Please speak about anything you want,” I replied, “After all, this is a free country – up to a point.”

So he came and delivered a speech in which he compared our soldiers to Hamas, who were then (as today) considered the most atrocious terrorists. This led to a terrific public outcry, Rabin threatened to boycott the ceremony, the jury considered whether it was possible to revoke the award, and Leibowitz announced that he would not accept it. So he never was awarded the Israel Prize, in common with some other people I know.

I ALWAYS enjoyed talking with him. He lived in a modest apartment, crammed with books, entered from a courtyard behind a house in Jerusalem’s Rehavia quarter. Greta, his wife and the mother of his six children, whom he had met at one of the German universities he had attended, kept order. Rachel and I liked her unassuming ways very much.

Whenever he talked, about any subjects, the little wheels in my brain sprang to life. He would drop little morsels of insight all along the way. (Just as an example: “The Germans and the Jews created all their cultural assets when they did not have a state.”)

The relationship between us rested on the fact that we were opposites in many ways. I am as convinced an atheist as he was orthodox – a fact that never disturbed him in the least. I am an optimist by nature (as was my father and my grandfather), he was more of a pessimist. He was 20 years my elder and a multiple doctor and professor, while I never finished elementary school. He came to Germany from his native Riga in his teens, while I was born there.

When, on the morrow of the Six-day War, we both spoke in favor of giving up the occupied territories, we had different reasons. He predicted that the occupation would turn Israel into a fascist state, I was convince that turning the territories over to the Palestinian people and enabling them to set up their own state would put an end to the historic conflict.

COMING FROM opposite directions, we both shared the uncompromising demand for the separation between religion and state. This led me to a parliamentary prank. When the Ministry for Religious Affairs was on the agenda, I asked Leibowitz for some comments on the subject. He dictated a statement to my assistant, and when my turn came to speak, I announced that instead of voicing my own views, which were well known, I would read out the opinion of an orthodox thinker, Prof. Leibowitz.

I then read his words: “Under this clerical-atheist government, Israel is a secular state publicly known as religious (in Israel, “publicly known” is a term denoting living together without marriage.) …The Chief Rabbinate is a secular institution appointed by the secular authorities according to secular laws. Therefore it has no religious legitimacy. ..The Ministry of Religious Affairs is an abomination…It turns religion into the kept concubine of the secular authority. It is the prostitution of religion…”

Here the Knesset exploded. The chairwoman of the session was so agitated that she announced that she was striking the words from the protocol. I later appealed, and the words were restored to the record – enabling me to read them just now from the official protocol.

As a speaker, Leibowitz was deliberately provocative. It was he who coined the term Judeonazi, at a time when comparing anything to the Nazis was strictly taboo. He likened certain units of the Israeli army to the Nazi SS, and youth in the settlements reminded him of the Hitler Youth. He called the holiest of holies, the Western Wall, “a religious discotheque”, or, in short, “discotel” (“kotel” means wall in Hebrew.) He used such provocative language to help him break through the crust of established myths.

THE LAST years before his death in 1994 he devoted all his efforts to encouraging soldiers to refuse to serve. We had several debates about this, since I was not quite convinced.

During my army service, I was witness to situations where one upright soldier at the right moment and the right place could prevent atrocities. One shining example: when Nazareth was occupied in 1948, the commanding officer was a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman. He received an oral order from David Ben-Gurion to drive out all the inhabitants. Dunkelman refused to do so without a written order. As an officer and a gentleman, he had promised the mayor at the capitulation meeting that no inhabitant would come to harm. He was immediately relieved of his command, but by the time his successor took over, it was too late to present things as occurring in the heat of battle. No written order was ever issued, of course.

Years later, I obtained a description of the episode from Dunkelman, who had returned to Canada, and Haolam Hazeh published it.

Against this argument, Leibowitz maintained that the most important thing was for individual soldiers to stand up and refuse to take any part in the occupation, whatever the consequences for them personally – imprisonment, ostracism, and worse. When enough soldiers did so, he believed, the occupation would collapse. (Yesh Gvul was founded with this aim.)

A FEW years before his death I had the honor of appearing side by side with him in a book of interviews by the German writer-photographer Herlinde Koelbl. There he defined his political outlook in the shortest and simplest way. I translate from German:

“There exist only two possibilities. The one is war for life and death, in the full sense of the term, in the course of which Israel will become a fascist state. The other possibility, the one that can help to prevent this war, is the partition of the country. Both peoples would have their independence and their states, but not in the entire country.

“I believe that partition will come, if not by an agreement between the state of Israel and the PLO, then through an imposed order. Imposed by the Americans and the Soviets.

“If neither of these happens, then we are heading toward a catastrophe.

“I repeat: there is no third possibility.

“Since the Six-day War, Israel has become a power apparatus, a Jewish power apparatus for ruling over another people.

“That’s why I say in the clearest terms: this glorious victory was the historic misfortune of the State of Israel. In the year of the “Spring of the Peoples”, 1848, [the Austrian dramatist] Franz Grillparzer warned of the path that leads from humanity, through nationality to bestiality. In the 20th century, the German people indeed followed this path to the end. We entered upon this path after the Six-day War. Our essential task is to put an end to this.”

I AM happy to receive this prize together with his granddaughter. It reminds me of another passage in the same interview. “For the short time left to me, I shall stay here. Here in Jerusalem are my children and my grandchildren, and all of them will also remain here.”

That is real patriotism. Dr. Johnson famously labeled patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel. We see the patriotic scoundrels all around us. But we are the real patriots – patriots like Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

There will not be a second Yeshayahu Leibowitz. “He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.”

Written FOR


  1. Blake said,

    February 5, 2012 at 12:06

    Jonathan is actually A Jewish Iraqi American, not Muslim. His website is “maskofzion” and shows in meticulous detail thereon how all terrorists roads can be traced back to “israel”.

  2. Blake said,

    February 5, 2012 at 12:47

    Jonathan’s mother is Jewish.

  3. Ladybat2 said,

    February 5, 2012 at 16:33

    I have a question about Mr. Avnery.

    I agree that we must not alienate Jews who have and still are standing up with us in this struggle against israel’s occupation of Palestinian people’s homes, properties and civil liberties. I have personally seen with my own eyes that this horrible crime against the Palestinian people has done horrible damage to the relationship between Jews, Christians and Muslims in the entire world. The suffering the zionists caused being allowed to go on for such a long time has given birth to such hate and mistrust garnered toward the Jewish people as a whole. I do not like this either. But it is a cold hard fact and side effect of what the zionists have done and the crimes they have and still are committing against the Palestinian people that is causing this and there is no chance of any thing getting any better till it changes.

    All this does is alienate Jews who are our friends. What then will Jews like them do? Where will they turn when once and for all the horrid false lie that is “israel” finally ends? If we continue to alienate them they might have no choice but to stand by the side of the zionists out of fear and for protection. Zionism must end. That will be no way to end it. That will only strengthen it since this type of fear was the reason zionism got started in the first place.

    But I have only one complaint against Avnery. Though I am thankful to him for all his hard work and sacrifice he has done for the rights of Palestinian people….

    I could be wrong…. if I am I welcome any one correcting me on this because I am still confused about it….

    I am still not sure about where Mr. Avnery stands on Right of Return for the people of Palestine. I do not recall hearing him say where he is on this. This concerns me deeply.

    Because any one out there who claims to be on the side of justice and rights for the people of Palestine MUST BE FOR RIGHT OF RETURN FOR THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE. That is a right granted to them by the United Nations and it is part of INTERNATIONAL LAW. If that law is not upheld that means that the zionists did and still are getting by with the ethnic cleansing of the native people of Palestine out of their personal homes and properties. The false state of israel was established AFTER the UN and its laws were established. Therefore israel is subject to its laws and is in violation of these international laws that have been put in place to protect all peoples now and in the future from this very thing happening to them. Wars happen and government’s fall and change but the people in all the lands on earth have the right NOT TO BE FORCED FROM THEIR HOMES AND COUNTRY because of it.

    If these laws are not upheld then we the people of this planet have not evolved into any thing better than our ancestors who went around murdering and plundering where ever they felt like it. This is the biggest reason why the zionist European colonists in Palestine cannot be allowed to get by with breaking international law. Because if they are allowed to get by with it that means none of us are safe from the same thing happening to us and to our children and grand children in the future.

    So I would feel much better if I knew for sure if Mr. Avnery is himself for upholding right of return for the people of Palestine. Because if he is that means he really is truly on our side.

    There are some Jewish people out there who claim to be on our side but stop short of saying they are for right of return. When this is the core issue of this horrible conflict to begin with.

  4. Blake said,

    February 5, 2012 at 18:14

    Very eloquently stated Ladybats.

    Here is a quote of his I found on Veteranstoday:

    “The best solution is to reintegrate Palestinians, a great people with tremendous commercial and economic ski lls, into Israel. This is what is best for Jews. Today, nearly a million foreign workers are in Israel, some for generations.  This is simply not sustainable but also reflects human tragedy. The coastline of Palestine would look like Dubai if this had already been done. And yes, a name change would be in order, a show of good faith. No nukes & a new name…New Palestine.”

    So by “reintegrating” I assume he means by allowing them to return.

  5. Frum Silverstein said,

    February 5, 2012 at 20:44

    All Palestinians are entitled under international law to return to Palestine. One single state is the solution, with equal rights for all, male or female Arab or Jewish, atheist or believer in G-d.

    Rabbi Silverstein

  6. Joe said,

    February 5, 2012 at 21:53

    How do you help free a country whose land you are living on that was stolen from the people whose country you are trying to help free? Palestine is under every israelis feet and they are going to leave their homes? How else CAN israelis “return” Palestine to its rightful owners without LEAVING WHAT THEY STOLE FROM THEM? I find israelis claims about freeing Palestine laughable.
    Hey! I am going to help you recover the property my people stole from you but i am not going to give back what my people stole from yours!? Typical judiac misdirection and lies, lies, lies.

  7. desertpeace said,

    February 5, 2012 at 22:14

    Your ‘logic’ would have kept whites from participating in the anti Aparthid movements of South Africa and the Civil Rights movements in the United States. Is that laughable as well?

  8. plasterangel said,

    February 5, 2012 at 22:19

    I do not`believe that the above quote means Uri Avneri supports the Right of Return — if he meant that, it would be stated, not danced around. “Reintegrating” Palestinians into Israel does not mean allowing them to exercise their right of return. And I am fairly sure, although I can’t swear to it, that I have read statements by him rejecting the Right of Return as unrealistic.

  9. desertpeace said,

    February 5, 2012 at 22:29

    On May 4, 1999, the day the Oslo interim period came to an end, a manifesto drafted by Avnery and signed by 500 Israeli personalities was published as a full-page ad in Ha�aretz. It expressed “support for the right of the Palestinian nation to proclaim the State of Palestine” in “all” territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem as joint capital of both Israel and Palestine.

    Gush Shalom objects to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and claims the occupation is illegal and that Israel is committing war crimes on a daily basis. It opposes Israel’s policies of blockade and nonrecognition of the Gaza Strip. It supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine question, with the 1967 border between Israel and Palestine, and with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.[5]

    The movement supports soldiers’ refusal to serve in the West Bank or Gaza strip, recognition in principle of Palestinian right of return, and an Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line.[5] Gush Shalom activists regularly confront Israeli security forces at construction sites in settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Separation Barrier. Gush Shalom said that Israel’s offer to Yasser Arafat in the Camp David negotiations of 2000 was not a “generous offer” but “a humiliating demand for surrender,” publishing the maps from the proposal (seldom published in the US), and an animation[6] from the maps showing how little would be left for a Palestinian state under the proposal[7][8] Avnery was among the first to meet and negotiate with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. In 2001 the organisation made a peace proposal on the basis of a two-state solution with the 1967 boundaries.[9]

  10. February 6, 2012 at 02:23

    You haven’t addressed ANY of the substance of Azaziah’s complaint: all you have done is post an essay by Avnery portraying himself as a nice guy.

    The word LIBYA doesn’t even appear on the page!

    Let’s see : “Muammar Gaddafi was the enemy of every decent person in the world. He was one of the worst tyrants in recent memory.” – Uri Anvery

    “We are benefiting from one thing,” said Muammar Qaddafi with a sinister smile, “and that is the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon.”

    Sorry – that quote was actually from
    the enemy of every decent human in the world,
    Benjamin Netanyahu

  11. plasterangel said,

    February 6, 2012 at 05:04

    But, again, nothing about the Palestinians’ right of return.

  12. skulz fontaine said,

    February 6, 2012 at 05:54

    T’would seem that there is only one lesson that all of humanity has learned in all of our years of wander.
    Humanity has mastered the art of hurting one another.

  13. mato48 said,

    February 6, 2012 at 16:12

    I was deeply touched when I read Uri Avnery’s farewell tribute to his wife Rachel, published on Desertpeace in June 2011. In his long life of now 89 years he has gained a solid reputation as a journalist, peace activist, and mediator between Israelis and Palestinians.

    I was deeply disappointed, saddened, I was devastated, to find out that Uri Avnery is not a peace activist anymore, he is a war activist. His conversion is even more despicable because he does the biding of the imperial powers (USA and her NATO allies plus the Gulf monarchies) under the disguise of a wise elder statesman and a peace loving person with high moral standards.

    It is evident that he does great harm because under the disguise of a peace activist he is able to sow confusion and unease among the activist community and to weaken the cause for peace and self-determination of Palestinians.

    Maybe he is just coming back to his roots, after all, wasn’t he in his younger years (from 1938 to 1942) a member of the Irgun?

    Even if I don’t formulate my disappointment and disgust in such emotional terms as Jonathan Azaziah did in his widely distributed and discussed text “The Case Of Uri Avnery”, I wholeheartedly agree with the message of Azaziah’s article.

    One could argue, that Uri Avnery simply lost his way and because of his advanced age of 89 years lacks the ability to analytically dissect and evaluate the zillions of bits and pieces of information that are constantly poured onto us, but I read his piece “Shukran, Israel”, and though I profoundly disagree with the tenor of this text it is admittedly well formulated and logic (at least inside the constraints of a supremacist and colonial mindset).

    His analysis that Israel aided the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism is accurate, he only omits the fact, that this resurgence will cement the patriarchal social structures, will strengthen or reinstall a feudal system, will perpetuate sectarian and ethnic divisions in Arabic nations. The resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism and the toppling of secular regimes (Iraq, Libya, Syria) which tried to modernize their countries based on socialist principles is the best thing that can happen to the neocolonial powers and will allow them to exploit the resources of Arab nations for a pittance as long as there is any drop of oil or water left in the ground.

    Forget the warning and whining about Islamic terrorism, The “war against terror” is just a sideshow. The terrorists are useful tools, they for instance are perfect scapegoats for curbing civil rights and shovel money to the “military industrial complex”. Terror groups can be corrupted, bribed, co-opted, neutralized, they can be used in many respects in the shadowy war that the imperial powers wage against the rest of the worlds nations.

    Uri Avnery’s last writings prove, that he still has a sharp mind and there is no excuse for his support of the conquest of Libya and the impending conquests of Syria and Iran. The only explanation for this position is plain self interest, isn’t he an Israeli after all?

    Israel profited from the destruction of Libya, which was an active supporter of Palestinians, and will even rake in greater profits from a destruction of Syria.

    The destruction of Syria by a bombing campaign or by civil war will remove another active supporter of Palestinians from the scene, and it will also secure the conquest of the Golan Heights (annexed in 1981 in defiance of Security Council Resolution 497). The water reserves of the Golan Heights, especially the Banias River, are desperately needed for agricultural irrigation and for northern Israeli cities.

    A destroyed and conquered Syria would not be able to launch dam projects and further reduce the water flow of the Jordan River. Israel would also be able to start another war against a weakened Hezbollah and secure control of the Hasbani River, another contributor to the Jordan River.

    I was saddened to see a defense for Uri Avnery mounted on Desertpeace, a blog that I hold in high regard. I read every post carefully and until now I didn’t mind the fact, that Desertpeace has not taken a clear stance against the NATO bombing of Libya and against the destabilization of Syria. But I have to ask now: Please, Josef Dana, explain your position! You mounted a defense for Uri Avnery with a text that for sure evoked fond memories but was completely unrelated, if not to say irrelevant to Uri Avnery’s views about Libya and Syria.

    Please, Josef Dana, tell us what you think about Libya and Syria!

  14. mato48 said,

    February 6, 2012 at 16:24

    Sometimes the truth is hard to face!

    I’m tired and my fingers hurt already from writing about Libya and Syria, therefore I didn’t include any details here. They can be found in various posts on my blog.

  15. Vicky said,

    February 6, 2012 at 17:07

    Azaziah has saved that collage of Holocaust images as ‘HoloHoax-TV-Mind-Control.jpg’

    HoloHoax? Really? A genocide that left millions of people dead? Yes, it was a genocide, not an ‘alleged judeocide’ as Azaziah calls it.

    I don’t believe that Holocaust deniers are worth debating with, as there is a risk that by doing so, you present denial as a legitimate point of view. It isn’t, any more than the idea of the earth being flat is a legitimate point of view in geophysics.

    Nor do I believe that Holocaust deniers are helpful to the Palestinian fight for justice. This fight has to be rooted in truth and compassion, and Holocaust denial is both a lie and extremely hurtful.

    As for the right of return, I know several committed Israeli peace activists who are unsure about it. They would like to accept it, but they are not sure that it is viable. Any Israeli who has got to the point where he or she is working for Palestinian justice is unlikely to have closed ears – you can discuss the RoR with such people, you can point out why it’s both reasonable and practical. People can and do change their minds. All peace work stems from this expectation of people changing. For that, they need to be able to access information. Azaziah points out that most American Jews support the existence of Israel as it is now – but he doesn’t point out that most of those Jews will never have even heard of the word ‘nakba’ and have a very limited idea of the circumstances of Israel’s founding. The myth of ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’ is still going strong.

    You can learn about the Nabka at university, yes, but it’s not something that the average American (Jewish or not) is likely to ever come across unless they take a strong and inquiring interest in Middle Eastern history and politics. It would make far more sense to write an eloquent and accessible piece on the Nakba than to rant against Uri Avnery, with lots of cheap poisonous shots about the Holocaust thrown in – not to mention the venomous screed against the Talmud. You are right that this piece is very anti-Semitic, and that bothers me way more than Azaziah’s criticisms of Avnery. There are many legitimate criticisms that can be made of Avnery’s views (personally I’m not a fan of the guy) but these ideas don’t belong to that category. Posting a photo of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, attempting to associate Avnery with him, and declaring the entire Talmud to be a ‘supremacist’ work is not exactly a sophisticated debating style, and I’m surprised you even bothered to touch this stuff with a bargepole. It’s exactly the sort of thing that the solidarity movement should not be having anything to do with – not because we are brainwashed by teh Zionists, but because it’s hateful and we stand against hate.

  16. mato48 said,

    February 6, 2012 at 20:09

    You are right! Jonathan Azaziah writes:

    “The primacy of Jewish suffering culminating in Nazi judeocide is mythical; it is an idolatrous religion. And the historical narrative surrounding it is overloaded, I repeat, overloaded with deception after deception after deception, from the Zionist-Allied propaganda about homicidal gas chambers to the vastly inaccurate, Kabbalistic “6 million victims of anti-Semitic atrocities” figure that has been repeated by Jewish media sources since 1890 (72).”

    I don’t support this kind of argumentation and I don’t condone the expressed Holocaust denial. I should have mad it clear in my comment.
    I will not refer to Jonathan Azaziah’s piece anymore.

%d bloggers like this: