    Jewish Secular Fundamentalism
    by Gilad Atzmon
    www.dissidentvoice.org
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Atzmon07.htm
    February 7, 2006

    Two weeks after the landslide victory of the Hamas most commentators got
    a lesson they weren’t prepared for: that they had to accept the fact
    that Palestine, or what at least falls under the banner of the
    Palestinian Authority, is indeed the one and only democracy in the
    Middle East. Unlike its neighbour’s nucleophilic single race democracy,
    where voting laws are far from global, extending them to all citizens of
    the State, Palestine welcomed all its inhabitants to participate in the
    polls regardless of any racial, ethnic or religious considerations.
    Indeed, some commentators were quick to suggest that the Hamas would
    rapidly bow to Western pressure. Ostensibly, not only didn’t that
    happen, but so far, the Hamas is proving to be as brave and resilient as
    the Palestinian people expected it to be.

    Just a few days ago, in an interview for the Washington Times Mahmoud
    Zahar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, insisted that the
    militant Islamic movement can manage without Western aid: “The Western
    nations can take their aid and get lost,” and firmly continued: “Israel
    is not a legitimate entity, and no amount of pressure can force us to
    recognize its right to exist.”

    Obviously, Zahar isn’t alone, Khaled Meshaal, the exiled head of the
    political wing repeated a very similar line of thought in the
    Palestinian newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida:

      “We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state that was
      established on our land.... Our message to the United States and Europe
      is: The attempts you are exerting to make us abandon our principles and
      struggle will be wasted and will not achieve any results.”

    I may admit that those brave Palestinians leave me nowhere short of
    clear admiration. Those leaders who survived the infamous Israeli
    extrajudicial murder attempts have never caved in. In spite of all odds,
    they stood up for their people and their people followed them. It is
    rather clear that the Palestinian people (in Palestine at least), voted
    resistance. They ousted the Fatah, whom they now regard as corrupted --
    and some even say collaborators -- and crowned instead an Islamic
    option.

    The Jewish Left is Not Convinced

    While most commentators on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict do restrict
    themselves to political and ideological criticism and analysis, a bunch
    of commentators take it one step further. They see themselves as the
    saviors of the Palestinians and cosmic representative of universal
    values. Rather than just enlightening us with some revolutionary
    visionary outlook, they insist upon suggesting an operative agenda.
    Resolutely, they insist upon telling the Arabs in general and the
    Palestinians in particular what is good for them.

    In an article published a few days ago in Dissident Voice, Shraga Elam,
    an Israeli journalist who lives in Zurich and presents himself as a
    supporter of the Palestinian cause, makes a clear call to the Hamas to
    dissolve the Palestinian Authority was announced.

    “Facing an impossible situation,” stresses Elam, “Hamas can still
    correct its mistake of participating in the election by dissolving the
    Palestinian Authority (PA) and ending the farce introduced by the Oslo
    Accord.”

    This is no doubt a courageous statement by an Israeli who pretends to
    express his love for the Palestinians. Considering the sweeping victory
    of the Hamas, there is no other choice but to admit that the Hamas
    represents the Palestinian spirit at least at the current stage. And it
    is that very spirit that elected the Hamas to govern the PA. Yet to call
    Hamas’s participation a “mistake” is to undermine the choice, the will
    and the spirit of the Palestinian people. I would admit that it is
    rather strange to hear such a demand from a ‘solidarity’ campaigner.

    But Elam offers what seems to be a sound argument. The formation of the
    PA, he says, “freed Israel from its responsibilities as an occupying
    power and given a free hand to destroy the Palestinian infrastructures
    instead of constructing and maintaining them.”

    On the face of it, the above has the shape of a sound argument, but in
    fact it is far from being one. It simply presents a retrospective view
    as a logical consequence. Needless to say that back in 1994, neither the
    Israelis nor the Palestinian could have predicted that the PA would
    become an extension of Israeli colonial apparatus. Within the last ten
    years Israel as well as the world went through some radical political
    changes. The victory of the Hamas is nothing but a direct reaction to
    these changes. The victory of the Hamas is a clear sign made by the
    Palestinian people that the PA should look after the interests of the
    Palestinian people rather than after the safety of the Israeli
    inhabitants of Shderot. The Palestinians crowned the Hamas because they
    insist upon assigning the PA a new role.

    Seemingly, Elam’s outrageous chutzpah or rather arrogance knows no
    limit: “Dissolving the PA, he says, “must be accompanied by a serious
    search for new methods of effective non-violent struggle against the
    occupation, and deepening cooperation with the Israeli peace movements.”

    Obviously Elam must be politically blind. The Palestinian people, those
    very people he is supposed to support, have crowned a political party
    that doesn’t recognize the state of Israel and the right of the Jewish
    state to exist. The Palestinian people had chosen a political option
    that doesn’t refrain from armed struggle. Let’s face it. Obviously Elam
    fails to see that for the Palestinian people, the Palestinian cause is
    slightly deeper than mere occupation. From the Hamas point of view, the
    Jewish state is located exactly were Palestine is supposed to be.

    But Elam doesn’t stop just there; the man has a clear operative agenda.
    “This is the time to create ANC-like common movements that will address
    issues like racism or oppression. Like the people of South Africa, it
    has to be realized that a separatist nationalism means catastrophe and
    therefore has to be abandoned.”

    Racism, I ask myself, what racism? What oppression? Is the Hamas really
    a racist movement? Is Islam racist or oppressive? As I said in an
    earlier piece, too many leftists find it easier to identify with Donald
    Rumsfeld than with an Islamic cleric. Being a secular Jew, Elam probably
    mistakes Islam to be very similar to Jewishness. Someone should explain
    to Mr. Elam that unlike a Judaism that can be realized as a universalist
    humanist approach, Jewishness is indeed a racist worldview. Islam,
    anyhow, isn’t racist at all. Mr. Elam can convert to Islam rather
    immediately in a nearby mosque.

    Being totally detached from the current political events in the region,
    Elam argues that, “The vision of one secular and democratic state from
    the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is the only viable and
    desirable alternative to the existing state of apartheid and to further
    terrible escalation.” Indeed he may be right, but I must remind the
    Israeli Exiled secular left Jew in Zurich that a priori the idea of
    secular state was voted out by the Palestinian people. This is the case
    at least momentarily. A secular state isn’t necessarily an option and,
    as a matter of fact, newly elected Parliamentarian and Hamas leader
    Mahmoud Ramahi has announced that it will call upon the Palestinian
    people to express their preferences for their future State in a
    referendum, and that the vote itself was not for the establishment of
    the State, but its prelude. Hitherto, I am left wondering, if Elam is
    indeed so enthusiastic about a democratic solution, how come he fails
    miserably to accept the clear-cut election result that took place in the
    one and only democracy in the Middle East just two weeks ago?

    The Talmudic Left

    Apparently Elam is not alone. Not only is he not alone, he follows an
    extensive Jewish secularist tradition. Not that long ago I learned that
    within the Jewish Palestinian solidarity groups, hatred towards Islam,
    and even Orthodox Judaism is rather common. Seemingly, a common and
    vocal tendency of the Jewish left is a radical atheist approach that
    proudly manifests zero tolerance towards any religion and spiritual
    tenets. Not that I am a religious man, but I must admit that I found it
    hard to grasp how come those who insist on presenting themselves as the
    carriers of universal humanist values can have such little respect for
    other people’s beliefs.

    It took me a while before I realized that Jewish Marxism and the Jewish
    left are themselves radical forms of fundamental religious belief.
    Indeed these worldviews are the direct continuation of Rabbinical
    Judaism. They have managed to maintain the main elements. They are
    exclusive, they have their racially orientated cyber congregation cells
    (JPUK, Alef List, JAZ), they have their great Cohens, they have their
    monolithic unified God standing in the core of every possible
    realisation (Marx, Trotsky, Freud, Levinas, etc.), and they have many
    Talmudic rabbinical persecutors who are totally engaged in bending
    reality into the given Secular Torah precepts. The Talmudic Marxists are
    there to tell us right and wrong, Kosher and Taref.

    A Marxist Rabbi as well as a bright Hebraic Prophet

    I would take us a few years back and suggest scrutinizing a text written
    by a classic Marxist Talmudic Melumad (scholar). Yet, his archaic
    writing may throw some light on the issue of Jewish left secular
    fundamentalism and its unilateral approach towards our human landscape.

    I am referring here to the legendary founder member of Matzpen Prof.
    Moshe Machover, and to a text the man published in 2002 ("Regarding the
    United Democratic Palestine and Freedom of Religion").

    “In 1962,” says Machover, “I was one of the founders of Matzpen, (the
    Socialist Organization in Israel), which upheld a consistent
    internationalist (and therefore anti-Zionist) position, and organized
    both Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian-Arab members for common struggle.
    I have not changed my basic views and political commitments since that
    time.”

    This is indeed a brave statement, but let us see what are those solid
    precepts that have never been revised, changed or updated:

      Palestinians, like the other Arab peoples, are constituent parts of the
      Arab nation. In the heyday of leftist Arab nationalism (following the
      Egyptian revolution led by Gamal ‘Abd al-Naser, and other
      left-nationalist revolutions) it was made very clear that the Arab
      nation faces the historic task of national unification -- a task that
      the nations of Europe have fulfilled by now, but which remains as yet
      unresolved in our part of the world.

    In fact, Machover isn’t that wrong, Arab unification is more than
    welcome but then rather than pan-nationalism it is Islam that unites the
    Arab populations. Surely Machover might not be too happy about that.
    Anyhow, it is pretty conceivable to guess what led Machover to adopt the
    notion of Pan-Arabism back in 1962 but the fact that he maintained such
    a vision in 2002, when the idea of the cultural clash between the West
    and Islam has entered into discourse is rather perplexing not to say
    alarming.

    Moreover, not only does Machover know how to solve the problems for the
    Arabs, he has a clear plan to start to schlep them around and
    re-distribute their natural resources. “Besides, a unification of the
    Arab East (say in a federal form) is absolutely vital for solving the
    economic problems of the region, because of the very uneven distribution
    of population and natural resources between the various Arab countries,
    whose borders were for the most part created by western imperialist
    powers, for their own purposes.”

    Not that I suspect that Machover is a Zionist but his argument reminds
    me of the common Zionist suggestion to the Palestinian subjects, ‘Why do
    you have to be in Palestine? You have so many rich Arab states to go
    to.’

    Anyhow, the following is probably exactly the key mistake that stops
    Machover, Elam and other Jewish fundamentalist atheists from realizing
    the cultural depth of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

    “In the modern world, inaugurated by the French Revolution, religion is
    considered to be not the affair of the state, but a private matter for
    each individual -- who must of course be allowed to follow any religion
    s/he likes, or no religion at all.”

    Mistakenly, Machover tends to think that Arabs are French and that
    Islam, Judaism and Christianity are merely spiritual coats with similar
    cultural and spiritual functions. Obviously he is wrong. While within
    Christianity there is clear differentiation between religious code and a
    civil one (something to do with the evolvement of Christianity within
    the late Roman empire), within Judaism and Islam such a dichotomy isn’t
    available. In those two faiths, religious law applies to civil matters.
    Machover and Elam, being dissident Israelis should know that the
    conflict between the Israeli civil state and the Halacha law is
    irresolvable. Islam for that matter is no different from Judaism. An
    Islamic state would be very different from any post-French Revolution
    European model. Not to see that is obviously a severe form of political
    blindness.

    Considering the fact that Machover published his paper less than four
    years ago, the following statement presents a clear religious tendency
    to impose a readymade principle over reality rather than adopting a
    judgmental critical outlook.

    “[T]he ‘secular democratic’ formula evaded the fact that the
    Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not basically a religious one. Religious
    fanaticism (on the Israeli Jewish side) certainly adds another twist to
    Zionist oppression; and Islamic fanaticism complicates matters on the
    Palestinian side (especially in view of the fact that many Palestinians
    are not Muslims). But the conflict is basically not religious but
    national.”

    I wonder, is it really a national conflict? Moshe Machover grew up in
    the Jewish State, being an educated man, he must know that the decision
    to erect the Jewish National Home in Palestine rather than Uganda was
    the outcome of the Biblical Aspiration. Machover, thus, must know that
    Zionism transforms the Bible from a spiritual text into a land registry.
    This fact alone turns Zionism into a form of Jewish evangelism. In other
    words, Zionism is a Jewish religious movement, it is based on a very
    strict interpretation of the Bible. Machover knows all that, and yet he
    insists that the conflict is national. Anyhow, failing to see just that
    in 2002 may explain why the legendary Machover’s relevance does not
    extend far beyond the choir of other Jewish Marxists, but in fact, Elam
    isn’t better off. Being a Palestinian supporter, he managed to become
    blind to the Palestinian spirit and choice. Both Machover and Elam are
    very attentive to their inner voice, the voice of ‘reason’. Seemingly,
    their atheist Jewish fundamentalist ‘reasoning’ is in itself a form of
    detachment from reality.

    The following paragraph is where Machover is going through a
    metaphysical change. He stops being an ordinary Marxist Melumad, instead
    he becomes a Hebraic Biblical Prophet. Like Papa Marx and to a certain
    extent like Bush and Blair, he draws his entire agenda for the future of
    the world, I assume that one must read it to believe it:

      Since in any case a democratic solution to the Palestinian problem
      cannot be achieved without a progressive transformation of the entire
      region, and since in any case the Palestinian Arab people would surely
      want to take part in the prospective unification of the Arab nation, a
      united (federal) Arab East would provide a context for the solution of
      all the inter-connected national problems. Within such a larger context,
      the Israeli Jews (along with other minority nations of the region, the
      Kurds and the South Sudanese) can be granted generous national rights,
      without this constituting a threat to the Palestinian Arabs or to anyone
      else.

      It may be said that such a scenario cannot realistically be achieved in
      the near future. It is perhaps a matter for the very long term. I must
      admit that this is true. But my point is that the scenario of “United
      Democratic Palestine” is not more realistic in the short term, as in any
      case it also would require a profound transformation of the whole
      region.

      Let us therefore think in true internationalist progressive and truly
      visionary terms.

    Yet this was published by Machover in 2002, according to the Talmudic
    scholar who never has revised his “1962 insight,” one billion Arabs were
    about to unite into a single nation that would allow the Jewish minority
    live in peace in Palestine. I wonder if he has reflected upon the fact
    that his prophesy for the Arab world is not that different from the
    infamous plans of the neo-cons of Washington for a Greater Middle East.
    Both visions are entangled with positioning western ideology that may
    adapt nicely to European and North American realities but not
    necessarily to the Middle Eastern world. And, in addition, imposing a
    set of values on others is far from acting in a humanistic way.

    The Prophets

    Apparently, the Jewish left secular fundamentalists have very little
    problem suggesting to the world what to do, as it seems, within the Alef
    list and other Jewish left networks some joined Elam’s call to topple
    the PA. Sue Blackwell, a Palestinian Solidarity campaigner as well as a
    devoted modern day Nazi Hunter mentioned just two days ago the wonderful
    secular Jewish option in Al-Ahram Weekly: “Amongst Jews, there is a long
    and honourable alternative current to Zionism: namely, socialism…. The
    socialist ideology of Marx, Trotsky and Luxemburg, of Abraham Leon and
    Marek Edelman, is an inclusive one, urging unity with non-Jews against
    the common enemy instead of either going meekly to one's death or
    running away to Israel.” Indeed there are many Socialist Jews but
    seemingly their common enemy isn’t the Bourgeoisie anymore. Following
    Elam, Machover and Greenstein the enemy is Islam and religion in
    general. Somehow, Sue forgot to mention just that in Al-Ahram, she must
    know why.

    But it goes further, rather occasionally, the argument presented by
    those wonderful socialists is taking a literary shape of Biblical
    prophecy. No doubt, some of those Jewish secular fundamentalists do
    follow the great tradition of the Hebraic prophet. We have just read
    Machover spreading out an historical determinist vision for the people
    of Arabia. Indeed talking about the future with such confidence is a
    unique quality reserved for the chosen socialists but not only.

    Last week at the Holocaust memorial ceremony, Dan Gillerman, the Israeli
    ambassador to the UN gave a statement in front of the General assembly.
    Within that speech in which he spread threats to Iran and the entire
    near east, he served the UN members with a clear prophecy “And I warn to
    you there will forever be an Israel so this horror will never be
    witnessed again.”

    Indeed, the idea that Israel will be there forever is nothing but
    horror. But somehow this message left me perplexed. I wondered what made
    Gillerman so certain. How did he know? Is he a prophet? Somehow, he
    sounds at least as certain as Machover, though both hold completely
    different agendas for the region. As far as I could see, the Hamas, who
    just won a landslide victory, is pretty determined to turn Israel into
    history. Iran is far from being enthusiastic about the Jewish state. I
    allow myself to assume that most Arabs in the region and beyond aren't
    exactly Zionist supporters. In short, not that I think that it is that
    easy to wipe out a nuclear regional super power backed by almighty
    America, but as we happen to know, nothing really lasts forever. Surely,
    Gillerman knows that European Jews had been spitted out by their host
    nations just over a half century ago, and this was in spite of their
    prosperous life and influence. Considering the complexity of Jewish
    history, I find myself wondering how can Gillerman and Machover be so
    certain about the future to come? How can Elam be so convinced that he
    knows how to sort out Palestinian problems? I wonder where the origin of
    this lies.

    Following Gershon Sholem I tend to believe that the answer to such a
    question may lie on the Hebraic perception of the bond between the
    Jewish people and God. Once a Jew regards himself as a chosen being, God
    and world affairs become an internal Jewish affair. Indeed, for the
    secular fundamentalist Jew, God is a variable general concept that can
    accommodate any earthy figure from Marx to Spinoza through Levinas and
    Freud. When that happens, one may tend to express aspirations applying a
    concrete and factual language. This linguistic form is rather common in
    Israel. In the newly born Hebraic culture the demarcation line between
    myth and reality is nothing but vague. Following Herzl, it is merely the
    ‘conviction’ that turns a “fable into reality.” In other words, it is
    all in one’s mind. It is all about self-determination. This may help us
    to grasp the Zionist messianic zeal when coming to redeem the land of
    Zion regardless of the grave moral consequences. But it helps as well to
    realize Elam’s zero tolerance towards the legitimate choice of the
    Palestinian people. It helps us to grasp Machover’s total dismissal of
    the obvious fact that Arabs are Muslims at large. As much as Ambassador
    Gillerman is certain that Israel is an eternal entity, while turning a
    blind eye to the gradual Arabic resistance, Machover is totally
    convinced that the Arabs are on the verge of becoming a secularised
    single nation in spite of the fact that in reality, they are actually
    becoming a pan-Islamic block. Seemingly, Gillerman, Machover and Elam
    are very good at listening to their inner voice. I would suggest that in
    order to block the stream of reality it isn’t inner voice they are
    listening to but rather some severe form of inner noise. Somehow they
    have managed to turn a blind eye to the sheer reality of the indigenous
    Palestinians. They turn a blind eye to the reality of Islam. They are
    totally engaged in bending reality into their own atheist religious
    beliefs. In fact Bush, Blair and the neo-conservatives are doing the
    same, they decide what reality is going to be for the Arab people.
    Unlike Machover and Elam, they have the power to impose their will. At
    least that is what they believe in.

    Indeed the Zionists turned an outrageous fable into a reality.
    Undeniably their strategies were successful for more than a while.
    Indeed, the Jewish Marxists were very influential for a while. But
    seemingly, cracks started to show. The world is slowly but surely
    acknowledging the scale of the continuous sin against the Palestinian
    people. Working class politics lost its charm as well, people around the
    world have managed to grasp that the crime against the Palestinian
    people is slightly broader than mere colonial conflict or a mere
    “material dispute.” I would allow myself to say that the Zionist
    manipulation lost its charm. But Jewish Marxism never had any charm. It
    was very effective in the 1960-70s when Palestinians were short of the
    capacity to draw enough attention. But now, things are different. The
    Palestinians have enough eloquent speakers, they have generated the
    right spirit of resistance. It is our duty now to follow them, and
    criminal to undermine them or their structures. Politely I would ask the
    Jewish secular fundamentalist to clear the stage and to let the
    Palestinians run their affairs autonomously.

    -------------------------------------

    Gilad Atzmon is an internationally acclaimed jazz musician whose CD
    Exile was selected by the BBC in 2003 as Album of the Year. He was born
    in Israel and served in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), and is now
    living in self-exile in the UK. Visit his web site at: www.gilad.co.uk.
    He can be reached at: gilad@gilad.co.uk.

    -------------------------------------

    An interesting piece by our friend Gilad Atzmon. Though as usual
    sympathising with his counterattack on Jewish secular antizionists (who
    attacked him and me for quite some time) I would agree with (sllightly
    reworded) Shraga Elam's call: "“This is the time to create ANC-like
    common movement against oppression, like in the South Africa". The PNA
    under Hamas majority may claim sovereignty over all of Palestine and
    allow all inhabitants of Palestine (including present citizens of the
    Jewish state) to recognise it and vote for it. The PNA can become the
    successor-state to the British Administration in Palestine while
    rejecting the Jewish UDI (unilaterally declared independent) state. We
    would call to follow Hamas in rejecting recognition of the Jewish state
    and extending recognition to the one all-embracing Palestinian state.
    Let our representatives in the one parliament work out the level of
    state involvement and religious tendencies. It is too early to conclude
    like Gilad does that the future of the region is islamic: it may will
    become but meanwhile Fatah is not a spent force, nor are the Jewish
    movements moribund. For sure, Islam will play its role in united
    Palestine, but it may be less all-encompassing than that envisaged by
    Gilad. Let future sort it out.

    Shamir