Dear friends, this is pretty much a summery of my argument against Jewish power
and the corrosive impact of Jewish left. If you are interested in my work or
even oppose everything I do, I urge you to watch (or read) this talk.
Posted May 17, 2015
The Jewish Solidarity Spin
By Gilad Atzmon
The Nabil Test
In order to grasp the way in which contemporary solidarity
terminology operates to deceive and derail the Palestinian cause, we will look
at a few theoretical simulations that will help to clarify the corrosive nature
that is the contemporary pro Palestinian discourse.
Nabil is a fictional 25-year-old Palestinian, 3rd generation
refugee born and living in Sabra and Shatila, Lebanon. Nabil is unemployed. No
prospect of a future for him. As a Palestinian refugee his chances of higher
education or a decent job are non-existent. Nabil cannot even obtain a travel
document. He is stranded in the camp.
Let’s try to predict the effect the Solidarity project will
have on Nabil.
The ‘End of The Occupation’ will likely have no impact on
Nabil’s life whatsoever. Colonialism and settler colonialism are theoretical
terms that have no impact on his reality or his day to day life. Apartheid? For
Nabil and many like him, it is actually an Arab country that discriminates
against him and turns his life into a compete misery. BDS? Nabil has no
interest, there are no Israeli products in the camps. Nabil’s interests lie in
the Right Of Return. He may not necessarily want to return to his land. But he
wants his rights to be recognized once and for all. He wants his children to
have citizenship and enjoy the prospect of a better future.
Yusuf, another product of my imagination, is a 70-year-old
Palestinian in Gaza. He has lived most of his life in Khan Younis. Unlike Nabil,
Yusuf is educated. For many years Yusuf believed that he would return to his
land near Be’er Sheva; by now, he has lost hope. Yusuf knows that the ‘End Of
Occupation’ has nothing to do with him. Gaza is not under occupation; it is, in
fact, an open-air prison. Yusuf could correctly argue that colonialism is a
theoretical notion that has zero significance to him and his people. Yusuf may
well think that when Palestine was subject to the British Mandate, Palestinians
were better off. So as far as he is concerned, genuine colonialism might
actually improve his situation. Apartheid? In the jail Yusuf dwells in, there is
no Apartheid. He is locked behind walls because he is a victim of Jewish racism
or Jewish exclusivism; you decide. Yusuf is not very happy with BDS, to start
with it only applies to Israeli products produced in the occupied territories. BDS
doesn’t address his plight as a refugee, and like many in Gaza, Yusuf may
actually like Israeli Humus in tins. Yusuf knows that the besieged in Gaza are
dependent on Israeli products.
But like Nabil, Yusuf understands pretty well what the Right
Of Return stands for. He wants to return to Be’er Sheva. He wants his rights
enforced. For Yusuf, the Right Of Return is the core of the solution to his
plight.
But now let us now examine the case of Avi, a classic Israeli
peace campaigner. Like my own father, Avi was born in 1938 in Tel Aviv. He has
lived all his life in Israel’s biggest city. He sometimes waves his Palestinian
birth certificate just to prove his true attachment to the land. Avi regards
himself as a reasonable Israeli who wants to resolve the conflict and live in
peace. But here’s the irony, unlike Nabil and Yusuf who were apathetic to the
‘End Of Occupation’ slogan, Avi is very enthusiastic about the call. Avi doesn’t
want to rule over another nation, at least this is what he says. When you
suggest to Avi that Israel is a colonial state, Avi will giggle, “If Israel is a
settler state, then I want to return to my mother state, just tell me what this
state is.” Like most Israelis of his generation and background Avi is happy to
leave Israel for good as soon as tomorrow morning. Apartheid? Avi is not happy
to see how Palestinians are treated, he wants the oppression to stop
immediately. BDS? Avi supports the call with all his heart. Avi doesn’t like the
settlers, he has nothing in common with them. He sees them as an obstacle on the
road to ‘peace,’ he despises their messianic attitude, he feels shame at being
associated with them. So far, Avi, a light Israeli patriot agrees with the
entire new Palestinian solidarity terminology and for a reason.
The new Palestinian solidarity terminology is designed to
appeal to Avi at the expense of Yusuf, Nabil and the vast majority of the
Palestinian people. But the key difference is this: for Avi the Right of Return
is a red flag; he sees it as an attempt to rob him of his ‘Jewish homeland.’
Avi’s empathy toward Palestine and Palestinians ends once the demand for their
return is raised. Avi sees the Right of Return as a call for a ‘new holocaust.’
“We have suffered enough” he says, “Israel is our home.”
Why Palestine?
Have you ever wondered what is it that attracts people from
all over the world to Palestine and the plight of the Palestinians? Are the
Palestinians the people who suffer the most on this planet? Is the situation in
Palestine more dramatic than malnutrition in Africa or the horrors in Syria and
Iraq? The answer is ‘probably no,’ and yet, since the 1980s the Palestinian
solidarity movement has gained momentum and grown. Why?
One possible answer is that Palestine has been a symbol of
gross and global injustice for almost seven decades. As such, it provides a
legitimate ideological, political and spiritual vehicle to criticize Jewish
power; the Lobby, Hollywood, Jewish over-representation in finance, politics,
media and so on. This explanation is consistent with the Zionist and Hasbara
claim that anti-Zionism is a ‘Jewish issue.’ Seemingly, Zionists and Hasbara
merchants aren’t always wrong. Indeed, healthy and genuine opposition to Israel,
Zionism and the Lobby entails an understanding of Jewishness, Jewish culture and
Jewish identity politics. Zionism is a Jewish nationalist movement, Israel
defines itself as a Jewish State, and the Israeli Lobby is a Jewish political
adventure concerned primarily with Jewish interests.
Bottom line- Israel and its crimes can only be understood
fully within the context of Jewish racism, Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish
culture.
Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, anti-Zionist and
pro-Palestinian scholars such as Israel Shahak and Israel Shamir delved into
issues of Jewishness and the Talmud. Their studies of Zionism and Israeli
chauvinism identified an ideological and cultural continuum among Israel,
Zionism, Jewish religious heritage and culture. At about the same time, Hasbara
and Jewish progressive organisations apparently gathered that the Palestine
solidarity movement had become a ‘big problem;’ it endangered Jewish global
interests. Since then, there has been a sharp rise in support for Palestine from
Jewish progressive and left circles. By 2011, Jewish organizations like JVP and
Jewish media outlets such as Mondoweiss dominated the Palestinian solidarity
discourse. But this Jewish pro- Palestinian enthusiasm came at a high price.
Palestine Cause vs. Jewish Solidarity
The Right Of Return is at the core of the Palestinian cause.
It positions the 1948 Nakba and the suffering of refugees as the primary issue,
it places Gaza into historical context and highlights the gross injustices
perpetuated and sustained by Israeli politics since 1948. It clearly illuminates
the racist nature of the Jewish state and its immigration laws. The Right Of
Return offers a clear course of action that unites Palestinians in the region
and in the Diaspora, but it evokes fear amongst Israelis, Zionists and Jewish
anti- Zionists.
Jewish solidarity has been shockingly effective in subduing
the call for the Right Of Return. It was gradually diluted and eventually
drowned in a tsunami of duplicitous terminology designed to appeal to Jewish
supporters like Avi at the expense of Palestinians like Nabil and Yusuf and
their essential rights.
Let’s examine some of the solidarity movement’s current
terminology.
End Of The Occupation
The call for the ‘End Of The Occupation’ was the first
indication that something had gone terribly wrong. On its face, the call appears
humanist and peaceful, politically pragmatic and even populist. The truth of the
matter is the complete opposite. The ‘End of The Occupation’ is a legitimization
of Israel through the back door - it confirms that the Jewish State within the
pre-1967 green line borders is a valid and legitimate political unit. ‘End Of
The Occupation’ limits the solidarity discussion to the West Bank; it is nothing
short of a spit in the face to 6.000.000 Palestinian refugees and a complete
dismissal of their right of return.
Colonialism
Another grossly misleading term promulgated by the Jewish
progressive solidarity campaigners is ‘colonialism.’ The term conveys the false
image that Jewish nationalism is as bad as British or Dutch colonialism but not
worse. Such a delusional vision of the Zionist project may also vaguely offer
the prospect of a future ‘resolution’ in some sort of a ‘post colonial’ phase.
But Zionism is not colonialism nor has it ever been. Zionism is a movement with
no precedent in history. Can you think of another historical moment when people
‘returned’ to an imaginary ‘homeland’ after 2000 years and asked the indigenous
population to move out to make room for the former ‘residents?’ Colonialism
requires a material and spiritual exchange between a ‘mother state’ and a
‘settler state.’ The Jewish State is a settler state but there is no mother
state to Zionism or Israel. When prominent solidarity activists refer to Zionism
as ‘colonialism’ they are either being intentionally misleading or simply
displaying a unique form of ignorance that one would not expect from educated
and highly motivated activists.
One may suggest that though Zionism is not a colonial
apparatus, the relationships between Israel and its West Bank settlements
establishes a quasi colonial correspondence between a ‘Mother,’ and a ‘Settler’
State.’ Wrong: The Jewish Settlements did not form a new state in the West Bank.
What we see instead is an ideologically driven territorial expansion, a form of
Judeo-centric Lebensraum philosophy and practice.
Settler Colonialism
In recent years a new terminological spin popped up within the
Palestinian solidarity ranks, namely; ‘settler colonialism.’ I guess that my
criticism of the colonial paradigm struck a few of the so-called progressive
anti-Zionist enthusiasts. They were pushed to revise their theoretical
narrative. Their efforts brought forth a new ad hoc deformed dysfunctional
theoretical baby. But the term ‘settler colonialism’ does not illuminate
anything. It seems a desperate attempt to further conceal the truth of the
Jewish National project.
Settler colonialism posits a situation in which super power
‘A’ facilitates the settlement of ethnic group ‘B’ on land ‘C.’ This action may
lead to grave consequences for the indigenous population ‘D.’ But this
explanation is problematic. The A-B-C-D scenario has nothing in common with
Zionism, Israel or the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It was the Zionists (B) who
persuaded Britain, then a super power (A), that a Jewish homeland in Palestine
(C) was the way forward. In short, instead of the A-B-C-D chain of events that
form ‘settler colonialism,’ when it comes to Zionism, there is a B-A-C-D
chronology. It is the ethnic group ‘B’ that pushes super power ‘A’ to act in its
favour. No interpretation of colonialism, settler or otherwise, provides any
support to Palestinian cause nor does it further our understanding of the
conflict.
Apartheid
Another inapt concept ascribed to Israel in a transparent
attempt to divert attention from the unique and devastating reality on the
ground is ‘Apartheid.’ The term suggests that Israel is only ‘just’ as bad as
South Africa or the southern United States. The truth is worse. Apartheid is a
racist system of exploitation but Israel doesn’t want to exploit the
Palestinians, it wants them ‘gone.’ At least from an ideological perspective,
Israel is a Hitlerian racially-driven, expansionist ethnic cleanser.
Tragically, this lethal exclusivism is consistent with Zionist
philosophy and some radical, yet popular, interpretations of the Judaic call.
The so-called ‘Jews in the movement’ are uncomfortable with a realistic
rendering of Israeli politics. They much prefer Israel to be grouped with other
vile regimes within a recognized historical pattern such as colonialism,
apartheid, etc.
BDS
When the call for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions of Israeli
goods was established in 2005 in Ramallah its first demand was for Israel to:
This call didn’t leave room for interpretation. Back in 2005,
the BDS movement disputed the legitimacy of the Jewish State.
But in 2010, its primary goal was changed significantly, it
now reads:
“Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands
occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall” (http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro).
There is no public record of the process that led to this
change. And as if to prove its deceptive nature, the change appears only in
English and has never been integrated into any of the official BDS publications
in Arabic. It is likely that most Palestinians are not aware of the change made
on their behalf by people who claim to be their ‘grass root’ representatives. My
study suggests that the change in the BDS goal statement that de-facto
legitimizes the Jewish State took place at the time the BDS became popular
amongst Jewish activists and accepted funds from liberal Zionist George Soros’s
Open Society Institute. You can read more about BDS, Soros money promoting BDS
campaign here:
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/israelpalestine-and-the-queer-international-a-book-review-by.html
It is devastating that even the call for BDS has become an
instrument to legitimise the Jewish State within its pre 1967 borders.
A Jewish Solidarity Pet
The logical conclusion of this analysis is pretty devastating.
A decade of Jewish left hegemony within the pro-Palestinian movement has reduced
the Palestinians and their plight into a mere ‘solidarity pet.’ The Palestinians
have been instrumental in an internal Jewish political show that has led
nowhere. The Palestinian cause and the Right of Return have been watered down
and replaced by terminology that was set to derail the solidarity movement and
has succeeded remarkably.
Like the Israeli left, the current solidarity terminology is
primarily focused on the West Bank: the End of Occupation, BDS, Apartheid and
Colonialism can only be understood in reference to the situation in the West
Bank, because the ‘Jews in the movement,’ are primarily interested in the West
Bank. This is easily understood. The Jewish world and Israeli society have no
interest in Gaza or the sand around it (except for the emerging possibility of
stealing the natural gas under its waters) Israelis and world Jewry do care
about the West Bank. Many Israelis and Jews see the West Bank as an integral
part of historic Eretz Yisrael-The Land of Israel. However, many other Israelis
and Jews like Avi believe that Tel Aviv is an appropriate fulfilment of the
Zionist dream. They do not care at all about the West Bank or Biblical Eretz
Yisrael.
It is this internal Jewish political debate regarding the
West Bank that has managed to shape the entire Palestinian solidarity discourse
diverting the attention from the Palestinians and their true cause.
Though it is no surprise that people who identify politically
and primarily as Jews (JVP,
IJAN, JFJFP,
J-big,
Mondoweiss etc) are also primarily concerned with Jewish interests, it is
legitimate to ask how these Jewish interests have succeeded in dominating the
solidarity movement of another people. How is it possible that the Palestinian
solidarity movement has been reduced into a ‘Jewish Voice’ that is almost
totally dismissive of the Palestinian cause? How is it possible that it is
Jewish voices that dominate the battle against the Jewish State? Would Nelson
Mandela allow a bunch of recovered Afrikaners run the Anti- Apartheid struggle
on his behalf? Would Malcolm X let ex KKK militants dominate the terminology of
his campaign? How did it happen to the Palestinians that their solidarity
discourse is attuned to the voice of the oppressor rather than the victim?
I believe that the ability to articulate these questions may
suggest that deep in our hearts we know the answers.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)