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