    Gilad Atzmon - Palestinian Solidarity Discourse and Zionist Hegemony

    22.11.06

    A talk given at today in Edinburgh hosted by the Scottish Palestinian
    Solidarity Campaign

    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 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 to include Jews in 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 as to
    which side they are on.

    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, some activists may stop for a second and ask why Dershowitz starts
    his book tackling the colonial aspect of Israel rather than facing its
    Fascist characteristics. My answer is simple. The left is afraid to
    admit that Israel is indeed a Fascist State. It is predominantly the
    politically-correct groups that furnish Dershowitz ammunition for his
    defense of Israel. 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
    exclusivist adventure, then ‘Jews for peace’, ‘Jews against Zionism’,
    ‘Jewish Socialists’, ‘Jews Sans Frontieres’ etc. are also wrong for the
    very same reason (being a racially exclusivist adventure).

    2. To regard the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a colonial dispute is
    to make sure it fits nicely into their marxist notions of typical
    working-class politics. May I suggest that a careful working-class
    examination of Israel will show 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?

    www.gilad.co.uk