Turkey’s most recent successful military coup was the ‘post-modern’ coup of 1997′ , inspired by concern within the military that the country was moving towards sharia law.  The ‘coup’ essentially consisted of a memorandum setting out a series of demands, including eight years state-funded education, and the government was forced to resign.

In view of the peculiar nature of Turkish ‘military coups’, Erdogan’s continuing attacks on democracy within Turkey, the Turkish involvement in the war on Syria and the negative outcomes in the event of failure, many people hoped that the recent coup attempt would succeed, for the sake of both Turkey and Syria. When the coup failed, its half-hearted nature plus the speed and preparedness with which he carried out a draconian purge, led some to suspect that Erdogan himself may have orchestrated the coup.

Given the enormity of everything that happened in Turkey subsequently, the question of responsibility for the coup quickly seemed almost trivial.  Few would disagree with the assessment of Syria’s Bashar al Assad, that Erdogan is using the coup to implement an extremist agenda. And many people with Turkey’s interests at heart believe that Navid Nasr speaks for them, when he writes:

You know… I certainly understand the realpolitic argument, and I understand that geopolitics is an ugly, dirty business not for those who demand sainthood in those they “support.” So I certainly *hope* that post-coup Turkey will end up in the Eurasian sphere.   BUT …
  • Do *not* expect me to sit back and lionize that two-bit piece of s**t gangster in Ankara *or* the AKP *or* the Brotherhood or say that what happened was a great victory for “the Turkish people.”
  • Do *not* expect me to stay silent as teachers, judges, independent reporters, virtually every aspect of civil, public and political society is purged of anyone who has ever expressed even mild disapproval of Sultan Sharmouta. The purges *will* number in the tens of thousands very soon, if they’re not there already.
  • Do *not* expect me to give credence to any kind of BS about how Erdogan/AKP/Brotherhood = Islam and Muslims
  • Do *not* expect me to be okay with conscripted soldiers, many of whom didn’t even *know* they were involved in a coup, being beaten, tortured, lynched and even beheaded in the streets by savage Ikhwani/Takfeeri mobs. [NOT by “the Turkish people” or “the Turkish working class” as some analysts would have it]
  • And do *not* expect me to stay silent when the Sultan decides to thin the ranks of the Kurds *and* the Alevi in the wake of the coup, which he will

But not everyone saw things in this light …

In aggressive disagreement with the above perspective is Gilad Atzmon, musician and writer on Jewish power (though not hitherto known as an expert on Turkey), who was unimpressed by Nasr’s ‘confession’.


Atzmon published his own perspective on the coup, which led to considerable debate on his Facebook page, followed by more posts and articles by Atzmon.   It would be fair to say that not only Atzmon’s views as expressed in the article, the relevant discussion and his further postings, but also the way Atzmon defended those views horrified many of his readers.

1) Gilad Atzmon and the New Ottoman Empire

The very title, The Military Coup Defeated By The People, sets the romantic, almost lyrical tone of the article.  A picture is created of a president who, though condemned by the artists and intellectual classes, is beloved by the common man, the working classes who have come out to save their president and their government, which ‘they see as a continuation of their true selves’ – heroic Turks who just defeated an army with their bare hands.

Thus: ‘Earlier today, the Turkish people heeded  their President’s webcam call to take to the streets and defeat a well-orchestrated military coup […]. This spectacular development demands our attention.’

The problem with this romantic interpretation of events is that it exaggerates and distorts the facts as we know them, and ignores some important questions.  Firstly, the coup was by no means well-orchestrated; there were many aspects that were not just incompetent but almost incredible, such as the manifest lack of leadership on the Bosphorus bridge (Jeremy Salt of Ankara University discussed the shortcomings of the coup in an interview with 21st Century Wire, from 42:15).  The thwarting of the coup may have struck Atzmon as spectacular, it certainly didn’t seem that way to anyone else watching the footage.  And the idea of the Turkish people taking on the might of the Turkish army with their bare hands is fanciful, to say the least.  Furthermore, the idea that this countercoup was a victory for the people is hard to swallow in view of subsequent events:ZZZZZZ Jo on people's uprising

Atzmon goes on to claim that Turkey has been transformed into a superpower.  If this is really true, by whom?  How much is this superpower status dependent on the will of NATO?  How does it square with Erdogan, having acted in all arrogance over the shooting down the Russian plane on the Syrian border in November 2015, having to turn around and make a very belated apology to Putin when the Turkish economy suffered so badly from the resulting Russian sanctions?

The article finishes with an odd paragraph giving examples of people who apparently do not want Turkey to be major world player.  Unfortunately the sources for these claims are inadequate, dishonest even: Chomsky’s hostility to Turkish success is evidenced by a link to an article in which Chomsky condemns Turkey’s oil trade with ISIS, and the link regarding Soros is hardly better.

By the time Atzmon published his article, footage and stills of the mistreatment on the Bosphorus Bridge of Turkish soldiers who had surrendered, and at least one beheading, had been widely distributed. Likewise Erdogan had already set in train his programme of wide-ranging purges – dismissals of teachers alone numbered 21,000. Whatever the background to the coup, the outcome struck many people following events from outside and within Turkey as a disaster for democracy in the country. A number of readers were shocked by Atzmon’s jubilation, his celebration of the coup as a victory for the people, which seemed  misjudged and tasteless.

*                      *                      *

Discussion of Atzmon’s article raged on the relevant Facebook page for about 24 hours after its posting on 16 July, and continued for several more days.  At least 45 participants  objected to the article without qualification, and around 25 were at least partially in support.  (In the discussion below, times and dates refer to the Facebook discussion of The Military Coup Defeated By The People, quotations are from Atzmon except where noted)

Gilad Atzmon and Erdogan

Erdogan became President of Turkey in 2014, gaining 51.79% of the vote, with a turnout of 74.12%, very low for Turkey.  Aspects of the elections have been criticised: as Prime Minister, Erdoğan could use government resources and facilities freely in his campaign, while the campaigns for the two opposition candidates were poorly financed. Furthermore, the state-owned Radio and Television Corporation (TRT) heavily concentrated on the Erdoğan campaign, granting almost no room to the opposition candidates.

In the June 2015 general election, no party gained a majority, and Erdogan is said to have acknowledged that one party rule was over in Turkey. A subsequent election in November 2016 saw the AKP gain a majority, though again the election process has been heavily criticised.

In the discussion on his article Atzmon constantly harked back to his mantra of Erdogan’s popularity, though totally without verification, unless you count pouring scorn on those who disagree. The claims became ever more disconnected from reality: the beneficiaries of the coup are ‘Erdogan and the Turkish people‘ [17 July at 04:53]; ‘There is another Turkey you don’t see … the Turkey that votes Erdogan and Islam … basically the majority of the people …‘ [17 July at 10:18]; ‘The man is admired by more than half of the Turks‘ [17 July at 21:56] ; ‘even his opponents agree that he did a lot for this country and loved in return by pretty much half of the population‘ [17 July at 13:21]; ‘The question is whether you manage to grasp the nationalist impetus led by Erdogan‘ [18 July at 08.09];  ‘they went to the street because their leader whom they loved asked them to do so ,, so they could save the order he introduced …’ [18 July at 15:38];  ‘I’m interested in the bond between the leader and the people‘ [18 July at 10:33]; ‘I’m overwhelmed by his leadership‘ [18 July at 12:27].

In Atzmon’s view, Erdogan’s success in quelling this unconvincing attempt at a coup turns him into a superhero [19 July at 00.08].

ZZATZLeadershipbond19 July 00.08

We are also supposed to believe that ‘The Kurds are [Erdogan’s] biggest supporters‘ [18 July at 23:14]; ‘Most Turkish Kurds are pious Muslims and supporters of Erdogan‘ [17 July 13:10] ‘Erdogan actually did a lot for turkish Kurds‘ [19 July at 01:19].  While it is true that Erdogan has flirted with the Kurdish vote, the voting distribution map for the 2016 presidential election shows that most of the Kurdish heartland of SE Turkey came out for the third candidate Demirtaş, and Kurds have become increasingly disenchanted with Erdogan, particularly in the light of Turkish military cooperation with ISIS and the joint attack on the  Kurdish city of Kobane in northern Syria.

Atzmon often hints that he is himself part of some inner circle: ‘ i actually spoke with 3 people within the AK that night [26 18 July at 12.27]  ‘Erdogan’s take on Syria, Russia, EU & Israel can be very disturbing for all of us,,, i looked closely into it.. spoke with some very influential Turks‘ {17 July at 03:59];  ‘I just visited this country many times… Met many government officials …[18 July at 06:30]  ‘My relationships with Erdogan are troubled As I mentioned above I questioned Turkish decisions makers on those topics and spoke a extensively about in turkish media …’ [18 July at 12:27]

The legacy of Kemal Ataturk, known as the father of modern Turkey, whose picture hangs in every public office (or did) is despised by Atzmon: ‘ Erdogan emancipated the Turks from the ataturk plot..‘ [18 July at 17:53];  ‘his cultural revolution was of Jewish nature .. Like Zionism and Bolshevism it invoked an Identity theft.. kemal is still a hero within different circles .’ [19 July at 23:38]

According to Atzmon, Ataturk is loathed by the majority of the Turkish people:

ZZZZKazuro Shino 21 July AA

Atzmon’s disdain for Ataturk is shared by Bojan Budimac


(So I guess everyone else is wrong about the connections between Turkey, especially the Erdogan family, with ISIS.)

Atzmon’s oblique reference to Erdogan’s ‘mission’ may in part be explained by the recurring theme of the Ottoman empire: ‘Erdogan’s take on Syria, Russia, EU & Israel […] makes a lot of sense from Ottoman perspectives,,, however,, i don’t want to become the Ottoman ambassador on FB…:)‘ [17 July at 03:59]; ‘if you look at Erdogan activity from Ottoman perspectives you understand his policy towards Israel, Syria, Russia, Asad , Isis etc‘ [17 July at 04:56]; ‘If you look at Turkey from Ottoman perspectives;  Erdogan has a clear agenda that is at large Ottoman … his actions re Syria, Israel, Isis and Rusia must be considered from an Ottoman perspectives…[17 July 13:21] ‘Erdogan actions re israel , Syria, nato, Isis must be examined from turkish nationalist and ottoman perspectives .. When you do that you ll grasp what turkey and Erdogan are up against …‘ [18 July at 06:51]

 The Ottoman Empire, in Atzmon’s view, was destroyed by Ataturk.  Ataturk ‘was a Jew agent (maybe even an ethnic Jew) set to destroy the Ottoman Empire‘ [17 July at 13:40];

But if you are really sensitive to the Jewish sectarian plans which is a great news, how could you oppose Erdogan uniting the Turks under an ottoman flag? Erdogan emancipated the Turks from the ataturk plot‘ [18 July at 17:53].

It’s not quite clear what this ‘Ottoman flag’ entails, but this may help.


Thus the number one reason for Turkish involvement in Syria is the belief, which Atzmon has a lot of sympathy with, that Syria IS part of the Ottoman empire. Which may be true.

Atzmon, it seems, also has a view on the downfall of the British Empire, drawing a parallel between Ataturk and Winston Churchill, who he blames for the loss of the British Empire.  ‘Similarly the Brits love Churchill despite the fact that he finished the empire off taking it into a world war..was the empire supposed to die ? Maybe.. But Winston did it..‘ [20 July at 00:25].

So while Atzmon here and elsewhere has trumpeted the value of Nationalism,  he has emerged as a great proponent of Empire. Which invites the question: if Atzmon is at heart an imperialist, how does he really feel about the prospect of a Greater Israel?

Who does Atzmon hold responsible for the coup?

Atzmon is happy for responsibility for the coup to lie with Gulenites, Kemalites, the US, NATO, Mossad, or all of them together. ‘ It is quite easy to figure who were the foreign elements and what are the local ones,,, Erdoagan & co blame Goulan,,, but there is also a serious Kamalite elite that was involved...’ [17 July at 04:59]; ‘I am convinced plotters were Kemalists rather than Gulenites‘ [18 July at 21:44]; ‘What about you Barbara? Aren’t you exited about a Muslim nationalist defeating a foreign interventionist coup with just a single facebook call?‘ […] [19 July at 22:13]; ‘re foreign intervention and the coup..we may never know the details however 2 leading elements (kemalites and Gulenites) were heavily linked with foreign agencies.. The foot soldiers didn’t realise it was a coup anyway…‘ [19 July at 23:38]. (References by others to the ‘Zio coup‘ [Julia Kaya 18 July at 09:57 ], or the ‘Zio/Kurd Coupe ‘ [Bob Smith17 July at 11:38], met with no objection.)


Atzmon has spoken several times of the projected Putin-Erdogan meeting (see below), placing on it a great significance that is not seen by all. He now sees this meeting as evidence that the Turkish coup was a NATO-led coup to thwart an alliance between Turkey and Russia, as he explains in his article Putin, Erdogan and the Plot Against the Rest of Us.

As the picture clarifies, it seems that the coup attempt was motivated by the emerging alliance between Turkey and Russia. The possibility that Turkey becomes integral to a peaceful resolution in Syria brings to an end NATO’s interventionist war against the Assad regime. The plotters against Erdogan were desperate to halt such a transition.

Daniel Wirt has a different perspective on this Russian-Turkish ‘alliance’ [23 July at 03.10]:


A further article on 27 July likewise blames NATO for the coup. It is unfortunate, however, that the focus of the article is a video presenting ‘breaking news’ from Newsbud, which relies on evidence from the much-derided Bellingcat,ie Eliot Higgins, who desperately and unsuccessfully tried to pin the Gouta sarin attack on the Syrian government – his work blaming Russia for the downing of MH17 has garnered equally little respect. Curiously, Eliot Higgins is employed by The Atlantic Council, which is owned by … NATO.

 As long as no-one suggests that responsibility for the coup might lie with Erdogan:


Discussion of the coup is ongoing, but when it turned out to be such a dismal failure the first reaction of many people outside of and within Turkey was that it was staged by Erdogan himself (a ‘theatre’, my friend in Turkey described it). They noted on the one hand the quite incredible incompetence of the coup itself  (few troops who quickly surrendered, lack of leadership on the ground, the ease with which Erdogan could fly into Ankara) and on the other the great efficacy and speed with which Erdogan launched a purge of the army, judiciary, education and press.  When Jeremy Salt, for example, commented on the odd nature of the coup on 21 Century Wire, he did not discount the notion of a fake coup, but wanted concrete evidence. As Alexander Mercouris said recently, we simply do not know.  In any case, it is worth having a read of Solajic Slobadan’s biting but entertaining take on Erdogan and the coup.

Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood

Erdogan is criticised within Turkey for his intention of changing the secular nature of the country and his ties with the terrorist organisation Muslim Brotherhood, which is behind all terrorist organisations intent on the destruction of Syria . Atzmon, however, assumes that all well-intentioned people will support the Muslim Brotherhood and organisations associated with them – to criticise these extremist organisations, or Erdogan for that matter, is seen by Atzmon as a sign of being anti-Muslim.

however, to my great astonishment we found now that some of our closest friends oppose all forms of Islamic nationalism ,,, they are anti MB, Anti Morsi, Anti AK, Anti Hamas (Vanessa Beeley is open about it)‘ [18 July at 10.33]; Laura Stuart ‘is an incredible human being and a supporter of MB.. Hamas are also MB do you oppose them as well?‘ [18 July at 08:23]; ‘Popular Islamic movements this is what Hamas, MB and AK are..‘[18 July at 14:38]; ‘You seem to despise popular Islamic movement.. It is a common lefty position .. I am actually fascinated by Islamic resistance and Ummah‘ [18 July 14.29]; ‘Your dismissal of popular Islamic movement (or shall I say Sunni islam) is total .. We do not have to dig more than that .. You know very well that such a position is consistent with zio-con / Bernard Lewis / Adorno schools of thought.. I wonder whether it bothers you at all..It should …‘ [18 July at 14:45]

 It is assumed that all Turks who have voted for Erdogan, share his Islamist agenda: ‘the Turkey that votes Erdogan and Islam … basically the majority of the people …‘ [17 July at 10:18]

Atzmon’s clincher with regard to the worthiness of the Muslim Brother hood is of course the absurd claim that ‘For the Jews MB is the ultimate Satan‘ [18July at 08:15].

Atzmon’s rosy view of the Muslim Brotherhood gave rise to considerable debate.  At least two people involved in the discussion have considerable knowledge of the Brotherhood, Palestinian-Syrian Randa Berouti, and journalist Vanessa Beeley, who has spent much time in each of Egypt, Turkey, Palestine and Syria, and indeed was in Egypt during the period of the Morsi government.  The terrorist identity of the Muslim Brotherhood, its association with both the CIA and Israel, and its general treachery and venality, were all discussed.  I do not propose to repeat the debate here, but I do not recall Atzmon engaging satisfactorily with any of the points raised, nor with the article on the Brotherhood suggested by Jo McColl.

Nor did the identification of Islam with religious nationalism go unchallenged.  Houssam Abdul Khalek pleaded with Atzmon to differentiate between Islam and Islamic political movements:


However Gilad Atzmon believes that ‘in Islam like in Judaism there is no dichotomy between the religio and the political’. (Also stated in the main discussion but appears to have been deleted.)  It would appear that Atzmon believes that the only true Islam is  religious nationalism, as demonstrated by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan … and Israel.

Atzmon and Syria

Gilad Atzmon more than once declared his support for Assad and Syria: ‘I ve supported Asad all along and you should know it‘ [18 July at 12:27]; ‘I am not anti Asad i am pro and always been‘ [19 July at 00:15]; ‘I was always pro Asad and critical of Erdogan manoeuvres in Syria‘ [18 July at 05:37]. Atzmon is, furthermore, ‘the most anti-interventionist person in this planet‘ [18 July at 11:51]. There is certainly no tangible evidence, as far as I know, to show that Atzmon has campaigned directly for the Syrian ‘revolution’, but there is much in his history that is inconsistent with support for Syria:

  • his unwavering support for the Muslim Brotherhood and for Erdogan, despite the damage they have done to Syria.
  • Refusal to promote work by writers on Syria, including that of his ‘friends’ Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett.  I myself was disconcerted by Atzmon’s lack of interest in  my articles on Syria and the Yinon Plan, despite he himself writing on the Yinon Plan, despite the great enthusiasm he has shown for my other writings, and despite our hitherto good relationship (I’m pretty sure I’m one of the ‘dearest friends’ that he  worried will be disappointed by his article, see Facebook post).
  • Atzmon’s strong promotion of people who campaign actively for the ‘revolution’ and who speak in the most hostile terms of both Assad and pro-Syrian activists, including frequently in this discussion, above all Laura Stuart, aka Laura MacDonald London, praised several times by Atzmon as a wonderful person, or an incredible human being, who appears to have connections with terrorist organisations in Syria, and Bojan Budimac, promoted by Atzmon as the biggest expert on Turkey and Erdogan known to me,,, we need you here to show the light to those lefty ignorants and their Neocon terminology…‘ [18 July at 03:26].   For someone who claims to be anti-interventionist and pro-Assad, to rely for expertise on Turkey on a shameless propagandist against the government of Bashar al Assad is surely anti-intuitive.
  • At no point did Atzmon come to the defense of the Assad government when it was vilified by these or others like Rui Teixeira, who declared more than once’ASSAD is the terrorist nº1, the Syrialkiller‘ [18 July at 11:04].

All in all, Atzmon’s protestations of support for ‘Asad’ (never the Syrian Government) have to be seen as disingenuous. As Frances Everett pointed out, ‘If you support the work of people, fawn over people who support the destruction of nations, or if you support/fawn over people who support people who support the destruction of nations, then, well ...’ [18 July at 12.04].
Randa Berouti, who had suffered this ‘discussion’ for much longer, was less polite (Ladida Cactus refers Laura Stuart – it’s a long story …):


The Russian plane

This first article was followed by a further one by Atzmon on 21 July: it too promotes Erdogan’s narrative, in this case on the Turkish downing of the Russian plane in November 2015. Erdogan (and Atzmon) now want us to believe that shooting down the plane was all a plot, either external or by plotters within, and not the fault of the Turkish government.  Anyone who followed events at the time knows what a ridiculous assertion this is.  Erdogan at no point suggested that the plane was shot down by accident, or contrary to his wishes, and the debate that raged was all about whether the Russian plane actually crossed into Turkish airspace and for how long.  Erdogan allowed months to elapse before finally apologising, either to repair the economic damage caused by subsequent Russian sanctions, or as part of some larger strategy.

2) Gilad Atzmon the Troll

Regardless of content Gilad Atzmon’s style of debate also comes as a revelation.  He very rarely engaged with points they tried to make, provided no evidence for his claims, no sources (there was no response to my citing a poll that showed that Erdogan could be deemed unpopular rather than otherwise).

The mode of debate was to belittle those who questioned him, implying at the least that they were of inferior intelligence to himself and his supporters.  This stance was quickly picked up by Atzmon’s friends who, depending on their level of competence also made snide remarks about our intellect and our values, or in some cases simply called us ‘stupid’ and ‘liars’.  Thus anyone who disagrees with Gilad Atzmon must be:

  • stupid:’Yes Laura … we are suffocated in ‘banal lefty ignorance‘ [17 July 03.59]; ‘we should get used to the banality of the left‘ [17 July at 04:57]; ‘herd of imbecile activists who know fuck all about Turkey or Erdogan and his mission ,,, yet their confidence is amusing …‘ [7 July at 13:13]; ‘Barbara McKenzie at the moment this page is suffocated by imbecile proxy neocons anti Muslims of your type.. Only because I follow a no blocking policy ..‘ [21 July at 19:30].  In short: Leftimbeciles
  • ignorant, especially about Turkey: ‘you really don’t grasp Turkey and its affairs at all‘ [17 July at 04:02]; ‘you obviously don’t know much about Turkey‘ [17 July at 13:10]. ‘your understanding of Turkey and Erdogan is limited.. which is normal‘ [17 July at 13:21].
  • anti-Muslim: ‘i guess that Leftists hate Islam and muslims which is really not a big surprise..’ [20 July at 10:1513]; ‘Vanessa Beeley all I can say is that your dismissal of Muslims is at least consistent‘ [18 July at 14.36]; ‘Those who oppose Islam and Muslim Brotherhood will oppose Erdogan… It is simple‘ [23 July at 03:09]
  • anti-working class: ‘unless you insist to suggest to us that the Working Class are stupid‘ [17 July at 21:56]; ‘People who dismiss populist movement are oppressors of the working class‘ [8 July at 11:47]; ‘I like it when leftists are telling us the working class are wrong’ [17 July at 13:23]
  • leftists: The left can’t destroy itself … if is already reduced into noise‘ [18 July at 10:56]; ‘calling 52% of the Turks ‘mendacious’ is a typical left progressive attitude‘ [18 July at 12.47].  (This disdain is shared by Atmon’s supporters –  Laura Macdonald London: ‘if I had known what a bunch of cunts lefties are‘ [18 July at 10:47].). ZZZZZLeftists imbeciles
  • And as leftists, proxy Jews: ‘leftists are apparently proxy Jews‘ []; ‘fascist is a Jewish Neo con term and the fact leftist adopt it proves that leftists are Jew by proxy‘ [18 July at 05:16];

Frances Everett eventually lost patience and expostulated in the comments to a later post:SibelEdmonds19 JulyFrances.PNG

Atzmon clearly does not share the admiration of many for Navid Nasr’s ‘confession’ (see above):ZZZZZNavidAtzmonReply

The constant denigration and put downs were accompanied by strategies of distortion, deflection, red herrings and a compulsion to control the narrative: ‘Vanessa is …anti Muslims celbrating their brotherhood‘ [19 July 22:31]; ‘Those who oppose Islam and Muslim Brotherhood‘ conflates Islam with a terrorist organisation; a rather sarcastic comment that I did not claim to be an expert on Turkey was smoothly replayed as ‘Barbara McKenzie … was quick to admit she knows little about Turkey [ibid] (hardly true – I was in Turkey twice last year).  Red herrings included,  ‘could Asad save his country using a video call? we like comparative analysis don’t we?‘ [18 July at 23:21]’ and ‘Vanessa Beeley have you been in turkey in recent years… Do you know how many refugees this country took in the last 10 years?’  [18 July at 06:48]. I am still mystified by the total non-sequitur, ‘Turkey is an incredible place and the political tension makes it even more special …but I don’t expect leftist to grasp dialectics :)’ [18 July at 06:43]. 

Perhaps the best example of deflection is Atzmon’s answer to Mehrnaz Shahabi:ZZZZZMehrnazGlorification

His answer to Bryant following an argument over whether Atzmon described Ataturks as a fascist is also typical (Bryant may have been referring to Bodan Budimac’s use of the term, which went unchallenged by Atzmon):ZZZZZDejankaBryantOttoman

Thus Bryant’s thesis that the Ottoman empire was doomed anyway is turned 180 degrees and projected as Bryant agreeing with Atzmon that Ataturk was responsible for its demise…

All these strategies could be seen as simply indicating a desire to conceal the lack of real knowledge on Atzmon’s part.  However they will be very familiar to anyone who has engaged with Zionist trolls on twitter – the sheer relentlessness of denigration and nonsense puts one very much in mind of a ‘paid by the tweet’ troll operating out of Tel Aviv.


Another curious outcome of the debate centred on Atzmon’s article is the ensuing witch-hunt of ‘five solidarity activists‘ (named at one point as Vanessa Beeley, Jo McColl, Barbara McKenzie and Daniel Wirt – the fifth could be Randa Berouti or any one of a number of critics).  Atzmon has referred to us several times in Facebook posts and articles over the past few days, see for example here and here and here and here and presumably here. Having redefined us and our intentions, by attributing positions and attitudes to us that we clearly do not hold, or do not hold as a group, he is endeavouring to blacken our names by every avenue open to him.


We are accused of hating Islam and Muslims (on the basis of our criticism of Erdogan and organisations like Muslim Brotherhood and our lack of enthusiasm for religious nationalism).  We are also described as being anti-Turkish, seeing all Turkish people as thugs, because thugs is how we describe those who beat up, beheaded or otherwise humiliated frightened young soldiers on the Bosphorus bridge. (Vanessa Beeley and I have several times answered this charge, without response, by pointing out that it is Atzmon and friends who are suggesting that this behaviour was representative of Turks as a whole, while we ourselves find it incredible that ordinary Turks would have treated these young men in such a way, or stood by and allowed it. The answers we have (repeatedly) made to these accusations can be summed up in these comments to that post:

SibelEdmonds19 JulyDanielBarbara

Atzmon has furthermore decided that as a group we are actively promoting the view that the coup was orchestrated by Erdogan. There is no basis for this at all: several people who made a brief contribution to the discussion were of that view, I myself have made it clear I consider it a possibility, others have not addressed the issue: as Des Brittain, another candidate for the ‘solidarity activist’ denomer, said ‘No, mon ami, I am way beyond indoctrination. Nobody knows the truth yet about these events. We are all speculating’. [21 July 09:15].   Even more strange is the fact of Atzmon, pursuant to his wacky theory that the coup was ‘a NATO desperate attempt to block a possible resolution in Syria…‘  demanding we apologise to Turkey and himself (applying a rationale on the lines of ‘please say sorry for beating your wife’).Atzmon apologise

Atzmon spoke about the Turkish coup on Red Ice Radio (from 15:00), and could not help but devote some minutes to our debate: he was, apparently, shocked and embarrassed to find that some of his ‘followers’ were ‘anti-Turkish’ and ‘wanted the NATO inspired coup to succeed’. It goes without saying that these ‘followers’ are described as being ‘very slow – they’re not the most advanced intellectually’.

The exceptional Gilad Atzmon

It may or may not come as a surprise to those who have ever followed him on social media that Atzmon puts some effort in defining himself: ‘I am an essentialist reactionary‘ [18 July at 11.47]; ‘I’m not an activist you know… I am searching for understanding rather than soundbites‘ [18 July at 05:41];  ‘I always tell my followers learn to refine your questions …forget about the answers … Once you ask the right questions many new answers will emerge‘  [18 July at 13:34[. ‘I am interested in arguments and scholarship‘ [20 July at 10:15]; ‘I don’t support politicians but rather analyse the political.. I do not support Erdogan or his policies on israel, Isis, Syria etc,, I instead analyse this policies‘ [18 July at 12:15];  ‘the last thing i seek is ideological collectivism…if you have something clever to say, this is the platform to do it..‘ [19 July at 21:35’;  ‘I don’t tell people what to think ..I don’t run a party … I am interested in the shape of people’s arguments‘ [18 July at 14:18].

ZZZZZGiladAthens Jerusalem

Devoted supporter Julia Kaya accordingly extrapolated: ‘Atzmon is an intellectual Genius who exposes J-identity tribal spin,,, and lot of hypocrisy involved in solidarity movements’‘[118 July at 00.16]

Others have been less eager to accept Gilad Atzmon on his own evaluation:ZZZZVanessaAtzmonBullshit


3) So Who Is Gilad Atzmon?

We know that:

  • when questioned, Gilad Atzmon resorts to a number of strategies that are also used by pro-Israel trolls: distortion, deflection, attack, refusal to engage in honest debate.  We know that he never substantiates his claims, and that these claims are very often dubious, even ridiculous. All these tactics are used by trolls working for a Zionist agenda;
  • Gilad Atzmon, analyst of Jewish power, assumed critic of Jewish power, and assumed friend to the Palestine movement, is an ardent supporter of Erdogan and knows well officials in the AKP, so much so that he peddles blatant propaganda on behalf of Erdogan and the AKP;
  • he has shown no signs of being disturbed by the undemocratic crackdown following the ‘coup’;
  • he is undisturbed in his opinion of Erdogan by the latter’s culpability with regard to Syria;
  • he protests that he supports Syria, but this flies in the face of all evidence;
  • he is a strong supporter of the terrorist organisation Muslim Brotherhood, which forms the basis of all terrorist groups in Syria and is supported by Israel;
  • We have learned that Gilad Atzmon is a very strong supporter of the ideas of Religious Nationalism (an example of which is the Jewish State) and of Empire (an example of which would be Greater Israel).

Every thing that we have learned about Gilad Atzmon in the aftermath of the Turkish Coup is consistent with his supporting the Jewish State, and the Plan for Greater Israel.