JAZZA Festival 2010 @ the Scala

JAZZA Festival 2010 @ the Scala in Kings Cross, London on the 12th & 13th October. The event marks the official launch of the much anticipated Gilad Atzmon/Robert Wyatt/Ros Stephen’s new album ‘For the Ghost’s Within.’ (Domino Records) which is performed on both evenings by the Orient House Ensemble, the Sigimos Strings Quartet and the amazingCleveland Watkiss on vocals. Also performing – Mercury nominated folk phenomenons: the Unthanks sisters, Seb Rochford, Alex Garnett, Pete King, Oren Marshall, Palestinian hip hop from Stormtrap & DJ Eren, troubadour Rory McLeod, virtuoso oud-player Nizar Al-Issa and Sarah Gillespie’s quartet featuring Gilad Atzmon. Jazza Music Festival is organized in association with the Free Palestine Movement, leading advocates for the humanitarian rights of Palestinians and the right of free access throughout Palestine.

Please come and show your solidarity with the Palestinian people under siege in Gaza!

TICEKETS £20. Door 7.30



Nizar Al-Issa

Sarah Gillepsie Quartet

The Unthanks Sisters.

Robert Wyatt/Gilad Atzmon/Ros Stephen Album launch ‘For The Ghosts Within’ with the Orient House Ensemble,

Sigamos Strings & Cleveland Watkiss – vocals.



Shathayah (Ramallah Underground)

Rory McCloud

Robert Wyatt/Atmon/Stephen Album launch ‘For The Ghosts Within’ with the Orient House Ensemble,

Sigamos Strings & Cleveland Watkiss – vocals.

*The Jazza All-Stars* featuring Peter King,  Seb Rochford, Alex Garnett, Oren Marshall & Gilad Atzmon



12 thoughts on “JAZZA Festival 2010 @ the Scala

  1. Nah, just an ointment for the flies. The Zionist lobby crank up the aggro, but he has an explanation of why this is so, and has a case to make about how he is misread, misquoted etc. He has a book out in November and we’ll have him give a talk at golds. May or may not be worthwhile, but he is great with his sax and clarinet.


  2. Not doubting his musical ability, but I hardly think the only people who think Atzmon’s politics are pretty awful are Zionists. Attacking Machover by attacking “Jewish Marxism” was pretty amazing – Jewish Marxism, a “Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power”, which he contrasts to Marxism per se since “While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept.” Subservience to Jews, as in Jewish Marxism “is there to… stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying”.

    Such Jewish Marxists were heavily involved in the early days of solidarity with the Palestinians, he says, but luckily Palestinians “realised that the Jewish Marxists did not intend upon bringing millions of Palestinian refugees home either. It wasn’t even set to launch any form of an adequate resistance. It was there to saturate the discourse with empty rhetoric and pseudo-analytical jargon in order to divert the attention from questions having to do with Jewish tribal politics and Jewish identity.” That’s what it was there for, diverting attention. This is raving.

    Atzmon objects to Machover describing Israel as a settler-colonial state, which is an analysis he views as part of the agenda of that sinister Jewish Marxism: “Machover’s ‘settler state’ is just another Judeo Marxist spin that is there to divert the attention from the clear fact that Israel is the Jewish state.’” and “As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.” Just another spin to divert attention from the fact that the problem isn’t the socio-political processes but instead the Jews themselves, just another spin to stop people realising that Jews are not like “ordinary people”.

    Now, I’m not exactly addicted to the concept of ‘ordinary people’, but when people find an analysis objectionable because some group are seemingly to be viewed within the category of “ordinary people”, how exactly am I supposed to interpret this?

    I’m not misquoting him and I hardly think I’m misreading him either.

    The guy is an anti-Semite, John, and not a subtle one. His opposition to Zionism is centred on a struggle against people who might provide an analysis of what is happening which doesn’t reduce down to the problem being, in short, the Jews. “Jewish Marxists”, and people whose opposition to Israel involves an account of settler-colonialism, are witting or unwitting tools of Jewish power, in his view. Actually “unwitting” is a bit kind on my part, as his discussion actually makes “Jewish Marxism” appear as a conspiracy to protect Jewish power.


  3. well that sounds like good reason to have him here to debate. Will also ask him to respond, though right now I don’t have an email. Jxhn


  4. Mr Rosenzweig, when you quote a paper or idea you are supposed to provide a clear reference. For ‘some reason’ you failed to do it, so I will do it for you:


    For the record my deconstruction of Machover has 143.000 entries on google. I myself didn’t come across a single counter argument.

    I do indeed criticise Jewish Identity politics, ‘jewish Marxism’ and also Moshe Machover whom I regard as a very problematic figure (ideologically).

    … And yet I am very sorry to point out that you, Mr Rosenzweig also failed to present a single counter argument. Instead you label me as an ‘anti Semite’ which is a common Zio-ganda tactic!

    But there is a set of crucial question here- aren’t we allowed to criticise Jewish Marxists (ideologically)? Are you/they really beyond criticism? Is it because you/they are chosen? Or is it because you/they want to be regarded as such?

    In fact, you, Mr Rosenzweig, happen to operate here as a tribal Marxist and prove my argument. You basically attempt to gate-keep the discourse. Al Aharam’s writer Eric Welberg explores this form of activity in his new incredible book ‘POSTMODERN IMPERIALISM-Geopolitics and the Great Games (i will review it next week).

    My criticism of Jewish identity politics and ‘Jewish Marxism’ (an oxymoron) in particular is endorsed by the most important academics in the field (a list will be published very soon) and dissident magazines.. as you know i am published by most Palestinian outlets Are we going to dismiss them also as a bunch of vile anti Semitic publications. Where does it end?

    Mr Rosenzweig, as a Marxist you should know that my criticism of Tribal Marxism is a mirror argument of Lenin’s criticism of the Bund (1903). Should we also reject Lenin as a Jew Hater?

    There is a big difference between Jewish Marxism and any other form of nationally oriented Marxist cell or progressive activity. Let us follow the ‘Hammed Test.’

    Hammed from Gaza can easily join a British Marxist group, he can even form a New British revolutionary Brigade. But the same Hammed cannot join a Jewish Marxist cell (for the same reasons he cannot settle in Israel). He simply doesn’t qualify racially.

    Tragically enough, Jewish Marxism (as opposed to Marxists who happen to be of Jewish origin) is a form of national socialism… it is a racially oriented political cell..and guess what. I am against any form of racism !!!! As a humanist i have to oppose you and to expose your racially oriented agenda..

    Rosenzweig, I guess that you didn’t present a counter argument because there is no such an argument..

    Please prove me wrong.


  5. Paranoid thinking often involves seeing those who disagree or criticise as all connected, in some conspiracy working against one. In this case because I’ve done so Atzmon says I am operating as “a tribal Marxist” and thus apparently proving his points, that I have a “racially oriented agenda”, because, he suggests, I view myself as “chosen” or want to be seen as such. Part of that sinister network attempting to divert attention from the fact that Jews are just not like ordinary people.

    This you want to debate?


    1. Mr Rosenzweig, I am afraid that you do not get it. . You still didn’t produce a single argument or criticism. Please inform me and the rest of us why can’t I/we criticise Machover (ideologically)? or Jewish tribal Marxism? Can you produce an argument?

      If we criticise Israel for being the ‘Jews only state’, shouldn’t we also criticse Jewish Marxists for being a ‘Jews only cell’?

      I myself believe in integrity and consistency, what about you?


  6. Don’t take it so hard, Ben. Maybe it means that that cheque for all your years of faithful service to the World Jewish Conspiracy (TM) IS actually in the mail. Who knew? Atzmon that’s who! Buy yourself something nice…

    And John – nice friends you got…. having read his own words, exactly the ones in the article he has quoted above, but unfortunately many more than this, I’m assuming he didn’t misquote himself. Creepy I think captures it, don’t you? Paranoid also seems more than accurate having read the full piece and the response here. Part of the utility of paranoia in a debate like this is it is so very difficult to respond to. How exactly is one supposed to debate someone who sees the shifty Jew everywhere? What would a rational debate about the all-powerful shifty Jews, who are most certainly not ordinary people, look like?


    1. Liz, why is it so ‘difficult to respond to’?

      When I see thoughts /texts /ideas I do not agree with, I always find it easy to articulate a counter argument, but for some reason both you and Rozenzweig seem to struggle here. I really wonder why?

      To the point, I do not see the ‘shitty Jew everywhere’. And you didn’t read anything as such in this paper or any other paper by me. There is not a single reference to ‘Jews’ (as people) but rather clear criticism of ‘Jewish Marxism’ (an ideology) which i define in pretty clear terms!

      For the record- I never talk about Jews (the people) , I avoid talking about Judaism (the religion) , but I allow myself to criticise Jewish ideology. Do you have a problem with it? If you do, please suggest to us why is Jewish ideology beyond criticism? I am really curious!

      I am , indeed, critical of any form of racially oriented cell? Do you have a problem with it? Won’t you oppose a group of Aryan Marxists?

      I also have a serious problem with Machover’s attitude towards
      Islam and Muslims. I oppose people who regards others as “backward looking” in my book of tolerance such an attitude is totally unacceptable!!!

      I suggest that you make an effort and produce argument, after all, this paper appeared on most dissident journals. And interestingly enough, not a single Palestinian (nor anyone else) stood for Machover , how do you explain this fact?

      I guess that Hisham Bustani provides the answer, ” The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this ‘we know better’ attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior.”
      all the best

      Islam Islam and its role within the Arab struggle? Do you agree


  7. my, this escalated into name-calling – ‘Rosenzweig’ over and over and ‘paranoia’ – pretty fast. Well done all – do set up a separate space for a debate if you want to have one. If I was any more paranoid myself I’d be more careful with the various namings here. ‘Tribal’? Sorry I do not have the references for the texts in question, but anthropologists could be deployed… lal salaam


    1. Hello John
      I am always open for a debate, and also open to criticism of my work. Unfortunately I hardly come across any of that. Most of the time I have to deal with name calling.

      I would love to debate your friends if they are willing to produce an argument. I also happy to publish criticism of my work on my site. But it must be presented as a well argued text..

      However, just an introduction to my lexicon.
      In my work, tribal is a code name for ethno-centric and racially oriented separatist political activity. Jewish Marxism is clearly tribal. Tragically enough, silencing criticism is symptomatic to tribal activism. I have published a lot of work about it, and my new book deals with the topic extensively.

      I indeed used Mr Rosenzweig family name. I thought that it better to be formal considering the level of hostility he exhibited towards me. However, I have addressed his posts twice with the hope that he manages to explain to us why we shouldn’t criticise ‘Jewish Marxism’ or Machover in particular.


Comments are closed.