General Antisemitism

At the Guardian’s online bookshop, antisemitism is shipped within 24 hours!

Earlier in the month, after a mild rebuke of Gilad Atzmon in a CiF essay for engaging in antisemitism which hurt the Palestinian cause, the Guardian provided Atzmon a platform to respond.

As we noted at the time, it is no exaggeration to state that Atzmon’s antisemitism is no less virulent or odious than what can be found on the website of David Duke.

Briefly, Atzmon believes that Jews control the world, has given credibility to Holocaust denial, and indicated that modern-day antisemitism should be seen as a justifiable reaction to Jewish villainy. 

A review of Atzmon’s latest book, “The wandering who?” – which rehashes many of the same antisemitic narratives advanced in his blog – by the CST’s Mark Gardner, can be read here.  

But, who needs to rely on reviews of “The wandering who?” written by Jews who, Atzmon would no doubt argue, are immutably crippled by obtuse ethnic loyalties when you can read the book yourself and reach your own conclusions.  

In fact, you don’t even have to go to Atzmon’s website to purchase his book, as the Guardian decided that Atzmon’s musings on Jewish villainy is something their discerning readers need to know:

Per the Guardian’s online bookshop:

Note the editor’s synopsis of Atzmon’s book:

“An explosive unique crucial book tackling the issues of Jewish identity Politics and ideology and their global influence.

To be clear, here’s how the Guardian describes the aim of their online bookshop:

“The aim of this site is to present you with a tailored selection of handpicked books that reflect the Guardian and Observer’s well-respected literary coverage and reviews.

So among the “tailored selection of handpicked books which reflect the Guardian and Observers well-respected literary coverage and reviews” is an expose on world Jewry’s injurious “global influence”.

And, how helpful of “the world’s leading liberal voice”: the extremist Judeophobia of Gilad Atzmon is ready to ship in just one business day – and 20% off the cover price!

The Guardian: Your one-stop, hassle-free, 24/7 purveyor of antisemitism. 

71 replies »

  1. To what extent could the Guardian or its staff be prosecuted under British or Euro law for its open incitement of anti-Semitism?

  2. This is absolutely outrageous.

    “… their global influence”

    Global? Like in China? The Muslim world? Africa? South America?
    Straight out of The Protocols.

    But the Guardian has history. Remember “7 Jewish Children” ?

    and remember this:

    “Only here is there a Conservative party, and Tory press, largely in the hands of people whose basic commitment is to the national interest of another country, or countries”

    = Israel wagging the US dog

    • “Only here is there a Conservative party, and Tory press, largely in the hands of people whose basic commitment is to the national interest of another country, or countries”

      The “compassionate” release of the convicted bomber of Pan Am 103 demonstrates

      = Islamists wagging the British dog.

  3. This of course is the antisemitic Jew who the Times reports back in 2005 as saying:

    “We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously”

    The Guardian obviously takes it very seriously.

  4. So Der Guardian promotes anti-semitism?!
    I’m shocked! (not really).
    It is completely natural.

  5. If you order Atzmon’s book from the Guardian, you save £1.80! And, listed below among the books “you may also like” is “Invention of the Jewish People,” by Shlomo Sand, also with a special Guardian discount. It’s right next to Claudia Rosen’s “Book of Jewish Food.” So I guess even if the Jewish People are an “invention”, Jewish food is real. Or something.

    The Guardian shows, once again, why it is the most openly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic news source outside of the middle east.

    • I look forward to seeing it (note NOT buying it) on the remaindered shelves in bookshops.

      Or perhaps it’ll go the way of Sethele’s “erudite” tomes and sink without trace.

      Oh please heaven!

  6. I don’t think you help your cause here: the Guardian bookstore also stocks books by Melanie Phillips, Alan Dershowitz and Anthony Julius. It clearly stocks thousands of works and is not as ‘careful’ and ‘handpicked’ in its selection as it claims. Amazon and other sites also sell Atzmon etc. There is clearly a debate to be had as to whether all online bookstores should stop selling racist/antisemitic works (and by the way I include Atzmon in the latter category). However this is not an issue that is best raised by focusing on the Guardian online bookstore alone – it is rather an issue about the value-neutrality of all online bookselling.

    • Keith

      Are you REALLY suggesting that Atzmon is morally equivalent to Melanie Phillips, Alan Dershowitz and Anthony Julius?

      Please tell me you are not!

    • Keith:

      Putting aside your rather repulsive moral equivalence of Atzmon with Phillips, Dershowitz and Julius are you not bothered in the slightest by the Guardian’s depiction of Atzmon’s book in the following terms?

      “An explosive unique crucial book tackling the issues of Jewish identity Politics and ideology and their global influence.“

      This kind of language is straight out of the Protocols and would not be out of place on any one of the numerous far right websites out there.

        • Just googled the quote – it appears on most online bookstores that stock the book.
          I agree it’s hateful, but a) it was probably added automatically to the Guardian store blurb and b) there’s no reason to single Guardian out any more than waterstones for eg

          • I see, the Guardian ceases to have responsibility for that blurb because it was “probably added automatically” !

            I am teased by aspects of your posts

            (1) Where does this too-eager rush to make excuses for the antisemitism which underpins what passes for the Guardian ethos come from? What drives you to make such excuses for a rag which gives column inches to murderers of Jews just because they are Jews and wrote an obituary for a suicide bomber recruiter who deliberately got his family killed alongside him?

            (2) If you agree that it’s “hateful” then why (1) above? The comparison with Waterstones is risible. The Guardian online is published all over the web, Waterstones isn’t, and Waterstones is much more likely to listen to complaints about stocking this book than is the Guardian about singing its praises.

            It seems to me that your moral compass needs recalibrating.

            • I think it’s important to be specific and accurate in these matters. The point I am making is that actually the Atzmon issue is much bigger than the Guardian. By focusing on the Guardian you miss the major issue that Atzmon raises – that an antisemitic book is widely and unproblematically circulated throughou the bookselling industry.

        • Keith I just checked and it appears on other sites. But so what. Its no excuse to publish a synopsis that is antisemitic in the “world’s leading liberal newspaper” because others have published it.

            • This is a profoundly silly argument. Let me demonstrate with a hypothetical example:

              Mr. Plod: “So you are saying that you did not steal those office supplies?”
              Dr. K-H: “No, I pinched them all right. However, everyone does it, and so….”


              A possible Nuremberg defence:

              “Hey, man, don’t pick on us – everyone hates Jews.”

      • Putting aside your rather repulsive moral equivalence of Atzmon with Phillips, Dershowitz and Julius

        You’re making it up, Hawkeye. Nowhere did Keith suggest any such equivalence.

    • Keith. The synopsis written by Guardian editors describes the book as follows:

      “An explosive unique crucial book tackling the issues of Jewish identity Politics and ideology and their global influence.“

      There is a huge difference between a controversial thought-provoking book which challenges conventional mores and one which advances hateful, racist, vitriol. As Atzmon’s writing, by any standard, falls within the latter, I don’t understand why you’d defend the Guardian’s decision to not only offer it to their “liberal readers” but to legitimize its antisemitic premise.

      I mean, please, I’ve read your CiF essays, and you are certainly a reasonable person. So, tell me, do you not agree that when a writer literally accuses Jews of controlling the world he or she should be excluded from the mainstream literary community?

    • Not really. TG has been caught red-handed selling a book by an author even it acknowledges to be an antisemite. It shouldn’t be let off the hook by the argument ‘Everyone else does it’, which is a hardly an argument TG recognises wrt Israel, for instance.

    • Mein Kampf is a v tricky issue. I’m not happy that it’s so widely available. However, it’s an essential text to understand for anyone studying Nazism and the Second World War. Maybe it should only be available in libraries? I’m not sure…

      • Mein Kampf is a completely different issue. That is a famous historical work and its wickedness is well known. Not so with Atzmon’s scurrilous book. It is being promoted as a legitimate work when in fact it is something that Streicher would be proud of. Nobody should be surprised that the Guardian of all newspapers does not set us straight. After all, it is the Guardian that has actively promoted the most anti-Semitic play to be produced in Europe since the liberation of Auschwitz.

  7. Let’s note a distinction as a basis for further discussion. Amazon is a “bookseller” (among other roles) as an identified and established trade. The Guardian is a newspaper offering a very limited number of books for sale on an acknowledged editorial basis. The import and the principles involved in Amazon’s offering the book for sale are significantly distinct from those to be considered in the case of the Guardian.

    • That may or may not be true. I actually think that it’s a topic that needs to be investigated closely. While the Guardian online bookstore claims it sells only a limited number of carefully chosen books, the browsing I’ve done on it suggests that in reality it’s an online bookstore like any other – it seems to stock a huge selection of books. But there’s an opening here: perhaps by holding the Guardian to its word there’s a strong case for asking them to think more carefully about the books they do stock and excluding Atzmon. That case has to be made carefully – not on the basis that they are uniquely antisemitic in stocking Atzmon. That won’t get you a hearing as they would just point to the many other online stockists.

      • This is a split with no hair to attack. The distinction I address does not arise from any auto-generated manner of access to ISBN #s for sale you claim actually exists at the Guardian. It arises from the Guardian’s expressed claim of editorial selection, regardless. Therein lies its moral responsibility distinct from that of an established concern in the book selling trade. And since the subject focus of CiF Watch is the Guardian itself, and not the ethical conundra of the general book trade, the special attention to the Guardian here is the whole point.

  8. Kahn-Harris excuse more moral depravity is revolting, an echo of IG Farben’s excuse for its role in the production and use of Zyklon B:

    “We produced it and used it on Jews, but the US Public Health Service also used it.”

    People like Kahn-Harris aand the Guardian management have learnt the wrong lesson from the Holocaust, which they have taken to mean that anti-Semitism is not at all shameful unless the victims are actually being put in ovens.

  9. I want to briefly state what I think are the real issues here:

    For the record, I don’t like the idea of Atzmon’s squalid doggerel being widely available, on the Guardian site or anywhere else.

    But the issue is much bigger than Atzmon or the Guardian. The growth in online book-selling has radically transformed publishing, for good and for ill. For good, it has made access to books easier than ever. For ill, it has made dangerous and dodgy texts accessible in a way they never were before.

    The problem is that online bookstores are not really curated – they simply list more or less everything with an ISBN. With millions of books available, quality control is minimal to non-existent.

    On top of that, online booksellers are very reluctant to withdraw anything from sale. That is partly to do with an ideological opposition to censorship, but I think it has much more to do with the fact that, should they demonstrate a willingness to withdraw books, they would fear being inundated with requests to do so. On a highly contentious issue such as antisemitism and/or Israel, Amazon etc would be caught in the middle of competing claims about what is offensive and racist. So online bookstores tend to only remove the most obviously dangerous texts where there is no real constituency to defend them, such as anything that might smack of child pornography.

    I am not defending this attitude necessarily, I’m just trying to understand why the current situation is perpetuated. To be honest I am very torn: on the one hand I am a strong believer in free speach, on the other I appreciate the danger that certain books can represent. While I’d love their to be no antisemitic books freely available online, I also know that when booksellers start censoring – even with the best of motives – what often happens is that there is considerable ‘collateral damage’ when well-intended censorship starts.

    So what can be done? One way forward would be to concentrate not on whether an onloine bookstore sells a title like Atzmon’s, but how it is presented for sale. The blurb for the book is certainly very dodgy and it also hides its true antisemitic nature. So maybe it is best to ask the Guardian, Amazon etc to simply remove the blurb. That way, booksellers don’t feel they are censoring, but neither are they publicising.

    • Keith,

      I hear what you are saying and agree with you to some extent.
      But your suggestion of removing the “blurb” can also be seen as politically motivated.

      where does this end?

      For all of you who wish these books to be removed, you must also expect a massive amount of counter complaints, probably on political grounds, form the Islamic bloc.

      Regardless of who is right one must ask who actualy shuffle more capital in the online market these days.

      This battle must be taken further towards the root cause rather than on a one to one basis.

      • That’s precisely my worry: the idea of a constant stream of attempts and counter-attempts to remove books is pretty depressing – and it could well mean the removal of books that I or you do agree with.
        Removing blurbs might be the best available compromise though.

    • “To be honest I am very torn: on the one hand I am a strong believer in free speach,”

      You haven’t got a clue what free speech means. No-one is suggesting that Gilad Atzmon shouldn’t be free to disseminate his anti-Semitic views. This does not mean that the Guardian has to assist him in doing so. Let me provide you with another hypothetical example. Imagine I was of the view that your mother was a very bad woman. No doubt you would say that I was merely exercising my right of free speech.
      However, I don’t think you would be so ready with that argument if Newsnight were to give me a platform for my views or I were to tell you of my feelings over dinner at your home.

      • I agree! There is a difference between allowing free speech and actively promoting or benefiting from hate speach. The problem is that many in the book trade feel that they cannot and will not make that distinction. As I say, the issue is much wider than Atzmon and the Guardian.

  10. The above discussion about online booksellers, Amazon, newspapers, is irrelevant to the issue:

    The Guardian and its new best friend, Islam, hate Jews. The rest is sophistry.

  11. Do you agree, Keith-Harris, that anyone who promotes and feeds hatred and racism in print should not be in a position to make financial profit from it?

    Someone above referred to Atzmon’s book as “scurrilous” – I believe, having found out quite a bit about the man, that it’s also the product of a very embittered, maybe even sick, mind. Someone so consumed by hatred should not be encouraged nor his hatred reinforced by his being allowed to advertise it. I know that there are other equally if not more scurrilous books in print, but nowhere is it written that I must speak out against all of them. I can, however, speak out against this one.

    The Guardian trawls the gutter of antisemitism thinly veiled as antiZionism to find anything which shores up its egregious case to undermine Israel and its Jews. For them to promote an Israeli Jew to do that gives specious weight to their arguments. Do you not agree?

    Mein Kampf became the handbook for the rationalisation of wholesale murder. As such Atzmon’s book is hardly on the scale, but do you not agree that it may well add to the Jew-hatred which already exists and is too easily ignored, and may ultimately do a great deal of damage if it is not vociferously and publicly challenged?

  12. I do agree that Atzmon’s book ‘may well add to the Jew-hatred which already exists’.
    I am disgusted that a mainstream publisher put out his book and didn’t recognise antisemitism for what it is.
    The question is, what do we do? My point is that focusing on the Guardian alone may not be an effective strategy.

  13. Then what MAY be an effective strategy and if you do believe what you write above why are you nitpicking about CiFWatch’s criticism of the Guardian? What would you, Keith Kahn-Harris, be prepared to set up and/or do to act against this promotion of Jew-hatred by the Guardian?
    This is not the first time they have done it. They have promoted 7 Jewish Children and Israel-hatred shades into Jew-hatred above and below the line with chilling ease and without apparent awareness on the part of the promoters of them.

    I am sure that others as well as I are interested to know.

  14. Dear Waterstones,

    Please stop selling the Atzmon book, its antisemitic.

    Concerned consumer

    Dear Concerned Consumer,

    Thank you for your inquiry but we want to expose our readers to a variety of views even those you or I disagree with.

    I note that many other booksellers are making available this title including the Guardian.


  15. Waterstones also sells Mein Kampf but I came across the following:

    javascript:openWindow(‘’, ‘ProductZoom’, 400, 425);

    “Mein Rant” is much cheaper and probably much more amusing than either Mein Kampf or Atzmon’s antisemitic rubbish.

  16. The Atzmon book has definitely been removed from the Guardian bookstore. If you look at Jonathan Freedland’s recent twitter feed you’ll see he had an exchange with David Aaronovitch about this. Reading between the lines, I would guess that Freedland alerted colleagues to the fact that the book was for sale and they acted.

    It’s still on the Times online bookstore, though not the Telegraph’s. You might want to approach the Times.

    I think that you need to accept that there is a wide body of opinion on the left against Atzmon. The Guardian has after all, run a prominent comment piece against him – and yes I know that the person writing it was acccording to you, doing so for the wrong reasons.

    I would suggest that this wide coalition of opinion could be the starting point for some kind of civil dialogue about antisemitism. Might it not be useful to sometimes start a discussion with what you can agree on?

    • Why don’t you write something describing your approach to antisemitism at The Guardian and amongst the ‘Left’ generally and send it to Adam Levick.

      He might be impressed and let us all see it as a post.

        • Actually, Keith, JerusaleMite is right. I’d be very open to publishing something you wrote explaining how your understanding of antisemitism is different than ours. I think the discussion would be very interesting for all concerned. If you’re interested, please email us at

          Either way, I genuinely appreciate your comments on our threads.


        • No. But you have strong opinions on the subject which I have some sympathy with.

          And the Guardian is certainly not a forum to discuss antisemitism seriously as it constantly rubs shoulders with rank antsemites, (Like Hamas spokesman), while claiming pitifully that they are otherwise.

  17. Couple of Holocaust deniers on the Auschwitz opera thread of a really virulent strain. They are there just to taunt and to try to derail an intelligent discussion about the place of art in the Holocaust, or if indeed there should be a place for it.

    I very rarely, if ever, complain about comments because I don’t believe in censorship but I complained about two of them and they were removed.

    However, they are trolling the thread and keep coming back.