The Ugly Truth Podcast June 23, 2010

June 22, 2010

Mark Dankof joins the show as we interview Gilad Atzmon of as we discuss the real reasons for the troubles in the Middle East--The Old Testament and its command to make war on others.


Facebook Comments:

  • Cflockking

    As a Preterist Christian I am glad to see you Mark looking into the Preterist view.

    Jun 22, 2010 at 9:54 pm
  • eileen fleming

    Dear Brothers ‘with different mothers’ as Tim King coined the phrase.

    This little sister cannot resist to add what JC/The Prince of Peace quoted to THE SETTLERS in Nazareth during the time when Maccabean NATIONALISM sought to create facts on the ground in the area; and transfer Jewish SETTLERS from Judea into the Galilee with the goal to make the Galilee of the Gentiles into the Galilee of the Jews.

    I cite Luke 4:17-29

    The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

    “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

    Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing…

    “I tell you the truth,” he continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”

    All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. [end Luke]

    JC/The Prince of Peace’s Ministry was about breaking the power of economic, social, political power that kept the people in bondage aided and abetted by BAD religion!

    little sister, xoxe

    Eileen Fleming, Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu” Founder of Staff Member of A Feature Correspondent for and Author of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory”

    Only in Solidarity do “we have it in our power to begin the world again.”-Tom Paine

    Jun 23, 2010 at 12:32 pm
  • chris paul fan

    another incredible show, this should be mandatory listen to every kid and parent in america … please bring gilad back … thanks amrk and mark!

    Jun 24, 2010 at 2:44 am
  • ROLF

    In his discussion about the non-questionded reasons of anti-jewish feelings Gilad Atzmon mentioned the betrayal of Germany during the first world war by the German jewish leadership and the international jewish congress…the testemony of a jewish defector, member of the elite at that time and witness is available on youtube: listen to: Benjamin H. Freedman, 1961 speech. 5 parts. (If I am not wrong he also later became a Christian)

    Jun 24, 2010 at 6:05 am
  • Hornstein

    Following on from Gilad’s comment about teh Balfour declaration, here is a link to a speech given by Benjamin Freedman at teh Willard hotel in which he lays bare the reasons why the US joined the WW1 effort with Britain and why the Jews were targeted by the Nazis. It is a must read speech . . . .

    Jun 24, 2010 at 6:34 am
  • Joseph.

    Gilad is an increasingly important commentator from the Jewish people. Finkelstein, Pappe, Sand, Shlaim and Chomsky are intellectuals, political scientists, but Gilad is a polemicist and a provocateur, and is very valuable in that role — he is exploding a lot of dangerous mythology, and he does so in the name of universalism and humanism, and in the hope of breaking down barriers, breaking down elitism and breaking down the ghetto walls.

    More strength to Gilad — bring him back on your show please.

    Jun 24, 2010 at 8:12 am
  • rockclimber

    Gilad is an amazing man and it was finally good to hear his voice after reading his fine editorials. I hope he continues to do more interviews-he’s a natural and gifted speaker and very sincere, I don’t feel at all like I’m being ‘played’ by him.

    Great work as always Mark and so far as I know it you are the very first to get an interview from him and fine it was :)

    Scott Davis in Colorado

    Jun 24, 2010 at 9:41 pm
  • RickB

    That guy Jesus is a good litmus test, isn’t he. Who doesn’t like Jesus?

    Please…. Finkelstein & Chomsky are zionists.

    Jun 25, 2010 at 10:01 am
  • Joseph.

    Rick, don’t be absurd, really. You surely know there are many definitions of the term “Zionist”, and not only the deeply hostile, racist, imperialist, separatist, colonialist form of Zionism that Israel portrays to the world.

    I’d love for you to show me clearly — backed up be sources and evidence — that Finkelstein and Chomsky fulfil that aggressive definition of the term Zionist.

    As far as I know, Chomsky does indeed declares himself a resolute Zionist in that he favours a revival of Hebrew as a spoken living language and revived within literature, and Chomsky holds a belief that Jews’ lives should not be determined by the prejudices and oppression of others. Avi Shlaim, the renowned Iraqi Jewish historian and harshly severe critic of Israel is also a Zionist in a similar ( though not entirely the same) sense. ( for refs, see Finkelstein speeches in which he explains that, and also check Avi Shlaim’s critique of imperialist , aggressive Zionism in “The Iron Wall.” ) To me, there is nothing at all offensive about that definition of Zionism.

    Finkelstein is a Zionist? Give me a break ! In what possible way is Finkelstein Zionist? Please provide evidence, otherwise your claim is absurd. Admittedly, he doesn’t categorically dismiss Zionists, because ( unlike you ) he realises there are numerous definitions of the word, not all of which are aggressive and colonialist, and even in the case of the latter, Finkelstein doesn’t see much point in dismissing them all out of hand, but would rather work with anyone who is willing to see reason and willing to come to the table and talk the truth. The example he gives is Goldstone, who is a committed Zionist, but Finkelstein states it would be silly to reject him because of that . Goldstone is a Zionist, but has now committed to constructive critique of Israel, just as hard line racists gradually began to contribute to the eventual dismantling of South African apartheid.

    Neither Chomsky, Shlaim or Finkelstein ever identify as Zionists in an aggressive expansionist imperialist colonialist sense . Of course, if you have evidence otherwise — then provide it. I await the evidence.

    Don’t get hung up on labels, or we won’t get anywhere — if the black people of South Africa had refused to meet the hard line racist white power people — we’d never have seen the end of apartheid.

    Here are some more refs : Chomsky on his belief in Zionism — ” ( defining Zionism ) is a very complex problem. It depends on what you mean by Zionism. I was a Zionist activist in my youth. For me, Zionism meant opposition to a Jewish state. The Zionist movement did not come out officially in favour of a Jewish state until 1942. Before this it was merely the intent of the Zionist leadership. The Zionist movement for a long time stood against the establishment of a Jewish state because such a state would be discriminatory and racist.”

    And Chomsky again : “Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement. Later, the concept “Zionism” was very narrowly restricted for propaganda reasons. By the 1970s, when Israel chose expansion and dependence on the US over security and integration into the region, the concept “Zionism” was narrowed to refer, in effect, to support for the policies of the government of Israel. Thus when the distinguished Israeli Labor Party statesman Abba Eban said that the task of dialogue with the gentile world is to show that “anti-Zionists” are either anti-Semites or neurotic self-hating Jews (his examples were I.F. Stone and me), he was restricting “Zionism” to support for the state of Israel and excluding any such criticism as logically impossible. The concept “anti-Zionism” then becomes analogous to the disgraceful concept “anti-Americanism,” drawn from the lexicon of totalitarianism and based on strictly totalitarian principles. By now the term has been so debased by propaganda that it is better abandoned, in my opinion.”

    ( C/f )

    Jun 26, 2010 at 12:31 am
  • TimFromGa

    You’re not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can’t face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. Malcolm X

    Jun 26, 2010 at 6:11 am
  • Amerikagulag

    I would suggest that the real problem facing humanity with these ‘zionists’ is the religion itself, which is based on a supremacist notion; that of one people superior over all others. Unless and until THAT HUGE FLAW is erased from their nonsensical belief, we can never have peace. Zionism is white supremacy on steroids.

    Jun 26, 2010 at 10:35 am
  • Jane Harmann

    Mark, You and your friends (Phil Tourney, Mark Dankof and others) continue to impress. Each time I listen to your podcast I am left wondering how you could possibly top this, and sure enough next week you do it again, and again and again…

    Your guests are amazing and the messages they relay are filling the void of inconsequential banality that passes as “news” in the hasbara-agitpop corporate media.

    Thank you Mark, Jane (not my real name obviously)

    Jun 26, 2010 at 5:29 pm
  • RickB

    Gilan on Chomsky: “As you may know Chomsky is totlly discredited.”

    “The success of the Zionist agenda so far has a lot to do with the fact that they operate within tolerant discourses and people like yourself and Chomsky would go out of your way to defend them with foggy ideology. Unfortunately, this ideology doesn’t hold water anymore. As you may know Chomsky is totally discredited. His lame argument against Walt and Mearsheimer, which is similar to yours, puts a big question mark over his entire life time project. This may be a shame but the good news is that the resentment towards Zionism, Israel and relentless Jewish lobbying is becoming a mass phenomenon.”

    “I have a lot of respect for what Chomsky did along the years. However, as American activist Jeff Blankfort pointed out recently, Chomsky has been dismissing the power of the pro-Israel lobby. He opposed the BDS movement and made some efforts to “dissuade people from using the term ‘apartheid’ to describe Israel’s control over Palestinian society”. Chomsky also opposes the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution. Chomsky is in fact a liberal Zionist as well as a kibbutz enthusiast. This is enough to explain why his voice has been pushed to the margin within the Palestinian solidarity discourse.”

    Joseph, didn’t read the whole of your “foggy” discourse. I don’t have patience for it. And apparently by what Gilad says, I’m not the only one losing patience [actually I’m fed up with it] dialoging with zionists and zionist apologists. Joseph, I’m surprised that Chomksy has credibility with anyone, anywhere, any longer.

    Jun 30, 2010 at 7:30 am
  • RickB

    Joseph, the quotes I submitted from Gilad on Chomsky in my previous comment are from his “Touching Left, Islam, Israeli Lobby, Chomsky and Many other Hot Topics” entry on his blog at:

    Jun 30, 2010 at 7:33 am
  • Tom in GA

    This guy was mind-blowing. God bless his insight - wow. This man gave me hope - even if for just one day. Thanks - Gilad! You are an amazing human being.

    Jul 1, 2010 at 9:23 pm
  • Joseph.

    Rick, I find Zionism ( in the land grabbing , occupation sense ) as totally objectionable as you do. I am no apologist for Zionism. All I am saying is, you have to be practical to get results. Goldstone is a fervent pro Israel Zionist. So,we shouldn’t listen to what he has to say? You see, you just don’t make sense.

    And yes, Chomsky is a Zionist — but he has probably done more to alert the world to the Palestinian struggle than any other academic, besides perhaps Finkelstein. So we should reject Chomsky out of hand too? If you propose that, then you wouldn’t be doing the palestinian people any favors.

    And on another point, I repeat, there have been other non territorial, non land robbing interpretations of that word “Zionist” — some being symbolic and metaphorical or some simply connected to identity– they are not all offensive.

    And you still haven’t told me how Finkelstein is a Zionist, an absurd assertion. You can’t provide the back up because there isn’t any.

    Jul 10, 2010 at 8:43 pm
  • Joseph.

    And, by the way, I agree 100 percent with Atzmon’s critique of Chomsky and where he has failed, and the manner in which Chomsky seems sentimentally, willfully blind to some of the worst aspects of the occupation. I have no doubt about that, and someone needs to criticise Chomsky for it in the public sphere ( Indeed, some anti Zionist Jewish academics have criticised Chomsky, but all of that critique seems to have been blocked from entering mainstream discourse).

    But — I still say, those clear failings of Chomsky’s do not mean he should be dismissed out of hand. That is senseless.

    Jul 11, 2010 at 2:10 am
  • Jeannon Kralj

    There is one huge problem with all of this discussion.

    Jesus Christ, the axis of human history, is missing in action here.

    Mar 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm