Palestinian Solidarity
Discourse and Zionist Hegemony - Gilad
Atzmon
Let’s face it; while the
Palestinian and Arab resistance evolves into an absolute example of the ultimate
heroism and collective patriotism, the Palestinian solidarity movement in the UK
and around the world is not exactly what could be called a profound success
story. In fact, it would be erroneous to state that this is really the fault of
those who dedicate their time and energy to it. Supporting the Palestinians is a
complicated subject. Though the crimes against the Palestinians have taken place
in broad daylight and are not some well-kept secret, the priorities of the
solidarity movement are far from being clear.
When
thinking about Palestinian society we are basically used to thinking of some
sharp ideological and cultural disputes between the Hamas and PLO. Not that I
wish to undermine that staunch disagreement, but I am here to suggest an
alternative perspective that perhaps could lead towards a different
understanding of the notion of Palestinian activism and solidarity both
ideologically and pragmatically.
I maintain that Palestinian people are
largely divided into three main groups and it is actually this division that
dictates three different political narratives, with three different political
discourses and agendas to consider:
The three groups can be described as
follows:
1. The Palestinians who happen to live within the Israeli State
and possess Israeli citizenship - The Israelis have a name for them; they call
them ‘Israeli Arabs’. These Palestinians are largely discriminated by Israeli
law in all aspects of their lives; their struggle is for civil rights and civil
equality.
2. The Palestinians who live in the Occupied
Territories - In most cases those Palestinians are locked behind walls and
barbed wire in Bantustans and concentration camps in the so-called ‘Palestinian
Authority Controlled Area’ (PA). Practically speaking, those people live under a
criminal occupation. For three decades these people have been terrorised on a
daily basis by Israeli soldiers in roadblocks and incursions, they are subject
to air raids and artillery bombardments. Their civil system is shattered, their
educational system is falling apart, their health system is extinct. These
Palestinian people are craving for a single day with no casualties.
3. The Diaspora Palestinians - Palestinians
who were ethnically cleansed over the course of the years and denied return to
their homes by the racially orientated Israeli legal system (the Law of Return
and Absentee Laws). The Israelis do not have a name for them, they simply deny
their existence. The Diaspora Palestinians live all over around the world.
According to the UN statistics every third refugee is a Palestinian. Millions of
exiled Palestinians live in the region in refugee camps, the others can be found
in every corner of the globe, many are here may be among us tonight. The
Diaspora Palestinians know their rights and they want to be able to come home if
they so choose, they demand their right of return.
Confronting very
different realities, the three groups above have managed to develop three
competing political discourses: The 1st group, the so-called ‘Israeli Arabs’,
struggle for equality. The means they have to achieve their goals are largely
political. They search for a voice within the racially orientated Israeli
society.
The 2nd group, namely the ‘PA inhabitants’, battle against the
occupation. They fight for liberation. Their means are political, civil
resistance as well as armed struggle (in fact it is within the 2nd group where
the bitter struggle for hegemony between the PLO and the Hamas is taking place).
Being out of Israel and lacking international
support as well as adequate political representation, the 3rd group is still
ignored by the entire Israeli political system and even by major players within
the international community. The exiled Palestinians are largely neglected and
their demand for the right of return is yet to be addressed properly.
Apparently, the Palestinian discourse is fragmented. It is divided into
at least three different, sometimes opposing discourses. Cleverly, not to
mention mercilessly, on their behalf, it is the Israelis who maintain this very
state of fragmentation. It is the Israelis who manage to stop the Palestinian
political and cultural discourse from integrating into a single grand solid
narrative. How do they do it? They apply different tactics that maintain the
isolation and conflict between the three distinct groups. Within the State of
Israel the Israelis maintain a racially orientated legal system that turns the
Israeli Palestinians into 10th class citizens. When PA inhabitants are
concerned, the Israeli military maintains solid and constant pressure on the
civilian population. Gaza is kept starving, it is bombed on a daily basis. Some
of it is flattened. More than a few observers regard the situation in the PA as
nothing but slow extermination and genocide.
In order to humiliate the
3rd group, the Israelis enforce a racist legislation that welcomes Jews to the
country but rejects others (Law of Return). In practice it is a racially
orientated system that stops exiled Palestinians from returning to their
land.
Paradoxically enough, the more pain the Israelis inflict on any of
the groups, the further the Palestinians get from establishing a grand narrative
of resistance. Similarly, the more vicious the Israelis are, the further the
Palestinian Solidarity movement is getting from establishing a unified agenda of
activism. Indeed the Palestinian solidarity campaigner is confused and asks
himself what campaign to choose. Who should be supported? The division of the
Palestinian discourse into three conflicting narratives makes the issue of
solidarity rather complicated.
Seemingly, different Palestinian
solidarity groups follow different political calls and Palestinian causes. Some
call for an end to the Israeli occupation, others call for the right of return.
Some call for equality. Many of the solidarity campaigners are divided amongst
themselves. Those who call for the right of return and ‘one State’ are totally
unhappy with what they regard as a watery and limited demand for the ‘end of
occupation’. Seemingly, Palestinian solidarity is trapped.
Joining one
call and not another is actually surrendering to a discourse that is violently
and criminally imposed by the Israelis.
This is
exactly where Zionism is maintaining its hegemony within the Palestinian
solidarity discourse. It is Israeli brutality that dictates a state of
ideological fragmentation upon the Palestinian solidarity discourse. Whatever
decision the Palestinian activist is willing to make is set a priori to
dismiss a certain notion of the Palestinian cause. It is indeed painful to admit
that it is the Israelis who have set us into this trap. Our work, discourse and
terminology as activists are totally shaped by Israeli aggression.
The
Battle Is Not Lost
However, there is a way around
that complexity. Rather than surrendering to the Zionist practice which splits
the Palestinian solidarity discourse, we can simply redefine the core of the
Palestinian tragedy, which is now turning into a global crisis.
Once we
manage to internalise that the discourse of solidarity with Palestinians is
dominated by the malicious and brutal Israeli practices, we are more or less
ready to admit: it is the Jewish State: a racist nationalist ideology that we
must oppose primarily. It is Jewish State and its supporters around the world
that we must tackle. It is Zionism and global Zionism that we must confront
immediately.
Yet, this is exactly where the
solidarity campaigner loses his grip. To identify the Palestinian disaster with
the concept of ‘Jews Only State’ is a leap not many activists are capable to do
for the time being. To admit that the Jewish State is the core of the problem
implies that there may be something slightly more fundamental in the conflict
than merely colonial interests or an ethnic dispute over land. To identify the
‘Jews Only State’ as the core of the problem is to admit that peace is not
necessarily an option. The reason is rather simple: the ‘Jews Only State’
follows an expansionist and racially orientated philosophy. It leaves no room
for other people as a matter of fact and principle.
Yet, once we come to grips with this very understanding, once we are
enlightened and realise that something here is slightly more fundamental than
merely a battle between an invader facing some indigenous counter freedom
fighting. We are probably more or less ready to engage in a critical enquiry
into the notion of Zionism. We are more or less ready to grasp the notion of the
emerging secular emancipated Jewish collective identity. We are ready to
confront the modern notion of Jewishness (rather than Judaism).
Once we are brave enough to admit that Zionism is a
continuation of Jewishness (rather than Judaism), once we admit that Israel
draws its force from a racist ideology, harboured in national chauvinism and
blatant expansionism, once we admit that Zionism, which was once a marginal
Jewish ideology, has become the voice of world Jewry, once we accept it all, we
may be ready to defeat the Zionist disease. We do it for the sake of the
Palestinians but as well for the sake of world
peace.
The
Gatekeepers
Let’s
try to think of an imaginary situation in which a dozen exiled German dissident
intellectuals insist upon monitoring and controlling Churchill’s addresses to
the British public at the peak of the Blitz. Every time Churchill speaks his
heart calling the British people to stand firm against Germany and its military
might, the exiled dissident Germans raise their voice: “It isn’t Germany, Mr
Prime Minister, it is the Nazi party, the German people and the German spirit
are innocent.” Churchill obviously apologises immediately.
I assume that
you all realise that such a scene is totally surreal. Britain would never allow
a bunch of German exiles to control its rhetoric at the time of a war against
Germany. Moreover, dissident German intellectuals would not have the Chutzpah to
even consider telling the British what should or what shouldn’t be the
appropriate rhetoric to use at time of a war with Germany.
However, when it comes to the Palestinian solidarity discourse, we are
somehow far more tolerant. In spite of the fact that it is the ‘Jews Only State’
that we struggle against, we allow a bunch of self-appointed Jewish leaders and
activists to become our gatekeepers. As soon as anyone identifies the symptoms
of Zionism with some fundamental or essential Jewish precepts a smear campaign
is launched against that person.
I have been closely monitoring the
Jewish left discourse for more than a few years now. I might as well admit that
I can think of at least one good reason behind Jewish anti-Zionist activism. I
do understand the need of some humanist Jews to stand up and say, ‘I am a Jew
and I find Zionism disgusting.’ At a certain stage of my life I myself was
saying just that. As some of you know, I totally admire Torah Jews for doing
just that. However, when it comes to predominantly Jewish socialist and secular
left groups, I am slightly confused.
Moshe Machover,
a legendary Israeli dissident and a Jewish Marxist who happens to be the
intellectual mentor of the British progressive Jewish activists, expressed the
following view just a few days ago when he stated a complaint he had with a
petition. (http://www.petitiononline.com/grosveno/petition.html)
“anti-Semitism is a Palestinian
problem, as it pushes Jews into the arms of Zionism. This has long been
understood by all progressive Palestinians. Anti-semitism is an objective ally
of Zionism, and the common enemy of Palestinians, Jews, and all humankind.”
(http://redress.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=404627)
Indeed anti-Semitism may be a problem, yet, is it
really a Palestinian problem? Should the Palestinian solidarity campaign engage
in fighting anti-Semitism? Shouldn’t we leave it to ADL and Abe Foxman? I think
that we better try to do whatever we can to save the people of Beit Hanoun. This
is where we are needed. I am certain that the vast majority of the Palestinian
activists know that I am right.
Every PSC campaigner I have ever spoken
to admits to me that only very few Palestinians find interest in the Palestinian
Solidarity Campaign. In fact, the statement by Machover provides the reason.
According to Machover, those amongst the Palestinians who fail to see that
anti-Semitism is the problem are nothing but reactionary, as only the
‘Progressive’ Palestinians acknowledge that anti-Semitism is indeed a problem.
Let me tell you, the Palestinians I know do not like it when Machover or anyone
else calls them reactionaries just because they are not that concerned with
anti-Semitism. Reading Machover, it is rather clear that such views serve as a
body shield for Jewish secular collectivism and the Zio-centric historical
narrative. If to be honest, there is not much reason for any Palestinian to join
a movement predominated by the obsession with anti-Semitism.
May I tell you, I am
not an historian. I am academically trained as a philosopher and particularly as
a continental one. I am interested in the notion of essence. For me to attack
Zionism is to aim towards a thorough realisation of the essence of Zionism. To a
certain extent I am indeed an essentialist. This is pretty worrying for those
who try to reduce the discourse into positivistic exchange regarding numbers and
historical facts. I am interested in the spirit of Zionism. I’m concerned about
that which transforms the Israelis and their supporters into ethically blind
killing machines.
Beyond Chutzpah
You may have heard of the
book I am holding in my hand. Probably, it’s the ultimate Zionist filth: Alan
Dershowitz’s The Case For Israel. I don’t know whether any of you have ever
considered reading this banal not to say idiotic text. I did, it fell into my
hands a few days ago.
Shockingly enough, this book is structured as a
beginner’s guide for the Zionist enthusiast, a kind of “Israel for Dummies”. It
teaches the nationalist Jew how to be an advocate and defend the ‘case of
Israel’. We know already that Norman Finkelstein has managed to prove beyond
doubt that the text is academically a farce. Yet, there is something revealing
in this text.
The book is a set of deconstructions of ‘the anti-Zionist
argument’. It starts with the heaviest ideological and moral accusation against
Israel and it gets lighter, more historical and forensic as you progress.
Dershowitz launches with the ‘million Shekels’ question “Is
Israel a Colonial, Imperialist State?” To a certain degree Dershowitz manages to
tackle the question. He asks, “if it is indeed a colonial state, what flag does
it serve?” Fair enough, I say, he may be right. I myself do not regard Zionism
as a colonial adventure. However, hang on for a second, Mr. Dershowitz. It seems
you might be getting off the hook easily here. Our problem with Israel has
nothing to do with its colonial characteristics. Our problems with the ‘Jews
Only State’ have something to do with its racist, expansionist and nationalist
qualities. Our problems with Israel have something to do with it being a Fascist
State supported by the vast majority of Jewish people around the world.
Now if you, Scottish activists stop for a second, ask yourselves why
Dershowitz starts his book tackling the colonial aspect of Israel rather than
facing its Fascist characteristics. My answer is simple. We are afraid to admit
that Israel is indeed a Fascist State. It is predominantly the politically
correct groups that furnish Dershowitz with a Zionist fig leaf. In fact, it is
the Jewish gatekeepers on the left who have managed to reduce Zionism merely
into a colonial adventure. Why did they do it? I can think of two
reasons:
1. If Israel, the ‘Jews Only State’ is wrong for being a
racially orientated adventure, then ‘Jews for peace’, ‘Jews against Zionism’,
‘Jewish Socialists’, ‘Jews Sans Frontieres’ etc. are all wrong for the very same
reason (being a racially orientated adventure).
2. To regard the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a
colonial dispute is to make sure it fits nicely into their notion of working
class politics. May I suggest that a universal working class vision of Israel
implies that the Jewish State is nothing but a Fascist experiment.
I
would use this opportunity and appeal to our friends amongst the Jewish
socialists and other Jewish solidarity groups. I would ask them to clear the
stage willingly, and to re-join as ordinary human beings. The Palestinian
Solidarity movement is craving for a change. It needs open gates rather than
gatekeepers. It yearns for an open and dynamic discourse. The Palestinians on
the ground have realised it already. They democratically elected an alternative
vision of their future. Isn’t it about time we support the Palestinians for what
they are rather than expecting them to fit into our worldview?
Palestinians
are the Priority: an open statement of commitment to the Palestinian Solidarity
Cause
There
are individuals within the Palestinian solidarity movement seeking to create
divisions by:
* deliberately shifting focus away from Israel's war crimes
and its supremacist Zionist ideology;
* imposing unilateral agendas by
presenting both sides as victims;
* sabotaging service to the just cause
of the Palestinian people;
* ignoring the issue of right of return
for the Palestinians;
*
utilising the platform of the Palestinian discourse to argue about
anti-Semitism, which is not a Palestinian problem and not created by
Arabs.
Our
primary and single concern is solidarity with the Palestinian
people.
As
ethical human beings we consider it our obligation to:
* do all we
can to allow the information to be diffused as widely and as quickly as
possible;
* ensure the argument of the oppression and disenfranchisement
of the Palestinian people stays in the forefront;
* present as clear and
honest a picture as possible of the meaning of Zionism and the Jewish
State;
* to cross the divide and to unite in our war against the Zionist
crime.
We accept and believe in equality of all persons, regardless of
their race, religion, political or other orientation. We believe that full and
unconditional support of the Palestinian people is a condition sine qua
non for activists to adopt, and we recognise that their attachment to their
homeland is a fundamental and unalterable condition. To that end we advocate for
one unified State with equal rights for all its citizens.
Any attempts
at censoring reasoned critique of Israel and Zionism must be refused a
priori, as it is in conflict with the goal of seeking to protect and support
the Palestinian people - as their empowerment is the only way to peaceful
coexistence for all the populations of the Middle East. Any attempts at
dictating what the Palestinians should do will be looked upon with great
circumspection and suspicion. Palestinians themselves wish to construct their
own future and are not pawns to be shifted on the chessboard.
We demand
free speech for sincere critics of Zionism and call for an end to campaigns
created in order to ostracise its most vocal critics. Smear campaigns will not
be tolerated, as we recognise that they are the instrument of choice of
Zionists, and detract energy from our work. We will not hesitate to expose the
instrumental usage of them, no matter the claimed principles of those who are
engaged in creating such campaigns. On the other hand, open dialogue and
reasoned argumentation is welcome and greatly encouraged as a tool to
understanding and collaboration.
The indigenous people of Palestine are
facing extermination by the hands of the Jewish State, and the world keeps
silent. The sooner we draw public attention to Israel's needless wanton
destruction, the sooner we can do away with this horrifying, insufferable
situation.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/11/palestinians-are-priority.html