Gilad Atzmon is an 'enlightened' Jewish writer. He was born and raised in Israel and has long contemplated various paradoxes in his homeland. Eventually he left his himeland and later wrote a book entitled "The Wandering Who". This book dismantles the ideology and philosophy of Judaism and Zionism from the root. Inevitably, he was hated by the Zionists, though at the same time, able to enlighten many Jews. Strangely, even there have been some Palestinian activists protesting the book, such as Ali Abunimah. They have made a petition accusing Gilad as racist. The book seems to be a 'differentiator' for those who claim themselves Palestinian activists. There are those who really want the independence of Palestine, and support the Atzmon's book. But there are also many who actually just want power and money through their activity. The book also dismantles the guise of some Jewish peace groups, because some other Jewish groups who claim themselves anti-colonial activists in Palestine, have also rejected the contents of the book. Here we see that they really want to create an imaging only instead of upholding justice in Palestine.

In his blog, Atzmon actively criticizes the Israeli actions with a unique perspective, the perspective of a Jew who truly understands the essence of Israel and Judaism. Latest posts on his blog are about the Israeli actions in Syria and I think are interesting to be examined. I will translate some parts of his notes.

In the last week we have been following British and French’s desperate attempts to push for a military intervention in Syria. It is far from being a secret that both British and French government are dominated by the Jewish Lobby. In Britain it is the ultra Zionist CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) - apparently 80% of Britain’s conservative MPs are members of the pro Israeli Lobby. In France the situation is even more devastating, the entire political system is hijacked by the forceful CRIF.

But in case anyone fails to grasp why the Jewish Lobby is pushing for an immediate intervention, Debka, an Israeli news outlet provides the answer. Seemingly, the Syrian army is winning on all fronts. Israel’s military and geo-political calculations are proved to be wrong.

According to Debka, “the battle for Damascus is over”. The Syrian army had virtually “regained control of the city in an epic victory”. The rebels, largely mercenaries, have lost the battle they “can’t do much more than fire sporadically. They can no longer launch raids, or pose threats to the city centre, the airport or the big Syrian air base nearby. The Russian and Iranian transports constantly bringing replenishments for keeping the Syrian army fighting can again land at Damascus airport after months of rebel siege.”

Debka maintains that senior IDF officers criticized the Israeli defense minister (Moshe Ya'alon) who “mislead” the Knesset a few days ago estimating that “Bashar Assad controlled only 40% of Syrian territory.” Debka suggests that Israeli defense Minister drawn on a “flawed intelligence assessment and were concerned that the armed forces were acting on the basis of inaccurate intelligence.” Debka stresses, “erroneous assessments… must lead to faulty decision-making.”

Debka is clearly brave enough to admit that Israeli military miscalculations may have lead to disastrous consequences. It reports, “the massive Israeli bombardment of Iranian weapons stored near Damascus for Hezbollah, turned out a month later to have done more harm than good. It gave Bashar Assad a boost instead of weakening his resolve.”

Israel, Debka concludes, will soon find itself “face to face for the first time with Hezbollah units equipped with heavy arms and missiles on the move along the Syrian-Israeli border and manning positions opposite Israel’s Golan outposts and villages.”

Interestingly, Atzmon closes his writings by criticizing Western media. According to him, it is sad that Debka (Israeli media) could give answers why Britain and France insisted on such a military intervention in Syria. Why did not the Western media itself (give the answers)? Obviously, the British and French partisanship towards Israel was detrimental to the people in the two countries; massive resources were wasted to war for Israel, not for the welfare of their people. At least, according to Atzmon, Israeli media has dared to criticize its own leaders. Meanwhile, the Western media has even acted otherwise.

The Atzmon's criticism is also appropriate to be extended to (most) Islamic media that precisely become the Zionist mouthpieces. When the Israeli media itself has openly stated that Israel is engaged in a war of Syria and has a major stake in overthrowing Assad, why (most) Islamic media still insist that the Syrian conflict is a Sunni revolt against a regime which is accused of heresy and infidels?

s
* Master of International Relations, Padjadjaran University, a research associate of the Global Future Institute