Gilad Atzmon - ZIONISM IS DEAD AND KICKING

ZIONISM IS DEAD AND KICKING

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 AT 12:20PM GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

http://www.deliberation.info/

In a recent Haaretz article, leading Israeli columnist Gideon Levy affirms that Zionism is pretty irrelevant as far as Israelis are concerned. Similar to the line I myself develop in The Wandering Who, Levy contends that Israelis do not understand what Zionism stands for. For them it is an archaic notion.

The meaning of it is simple. That which seems as a vivid ‘Zionist’ / ‘anti Zionist’ debate is in practice an internal Jewish Diaspora quarrel with no significant practical meaning.

Levy writes, “In 2012, the 64th year of the (Jewish) state, no one even knows for certain what remains of it (Zionism), what the role of Zionism is and how it is defined.”

“Who is a Zionist?” asks Levy. “The truth is that there is no answer. Not because Zionism was not a just cause – it was, even if it was tainted by unnecessary injustices, and not because it didn’t succeed. It was the greatest national success story of the 20th century. But that century is over and its greatest success story has been established. The national home arose, and now it is a regional power. Anyone who wanted to – about one-third of the Jewish people have – join it, and the door remains open to the rest.”

Zionism was clearly a Judeo-centric revolutionary idea, but as it seems, it achieved its goal in 1948. Hence, it isn’t surprising that contemporary Israelis fail to grasp the meaning of Zionism. If early Zionists promised to transform the Diaspora Jew into an civilised being, the Israelis, for some reason, see themselves as ‘civilised subjects’. They at least in their eyes, are the post revolutionary products.

Hence, Levy argues that “Zionism is no longer relevant, and its place is in the history books alone.” He suggests that “Zionism’s way has been lost to us (the Israelis). That was inevitable, because it has completed its task.”

Similar to the line of thought I develop in The Wandering Who, Levy also differentiates between Israeli patriotism and Zionism. “Anyone who contributes to the state is a worthy citizen and a decent patriot. Anyone who contributes to its institutions is a philanthropist – this has no connection to Zionism. Anyone who is required to serve in its army, exactly like anyone who is supposed to pay taxes to it, is fulfilling his legal obligations. This has no connection to Zionism or its values.”

However, as much as Levy is correct in his reading of the Israeli and the Israeli society, it may be possible that, being an Israeli, he misses the role of Zionism as a Jewish Diaspora collective symbolic identifier. The Jewish State has a clear and significant function within the contemporary Jewish Diaspora discourse. The vast majority of Diaspora Jews and Jewish institutions identify or affiliate with Israel and support its cause. It is also true that some Jews, are critical of Israel and its policies. A few of these Jews identify themselves as ‘anti Zionists.’ Yet, bearing Levy observation in mind , the meaning of it all is that the debate between the Zionists and their Jewish opponents (i.e anti Zionists) has very little political significance for Israelis, Israeli politics and even Palestinians. This debate is there to help Diaspora Jews to identify themselves politically, spiritually and socially. It has very limited practical or pragmatic meaning if any at all.

But it also seems as if Levy ignores the huge impact of Zionist and Lobbies within Western politics. In the USA, it is AIPAC that dominates the country foreign policy. Here in Britain, 80% of the leading party’s MPs are CFI members (Conservative Friends of Israel). The situation in France and Canada is similar. So as much as Zionism is foreign to Israelis, it is pretty relevant for Diaspora Jews.

With AIPAC pushing in the open for an American attack on Iran, Zionism seems to be a serious threat to world peace. And yet, somehow, it is the so-called Jewish Anti Zionists who go out of their way to silence any criticism of Zionist lobbies and Jewish power within Western politics.

As much as Levy is correct in suggesting that Zionism may be dead for Israel, it is certainly alive and kicking in the West. It is probably the most influential and dangerous political school of thought. Especially because it has managed to drift away from the relatively modest notion of a ‘promised land’ into a globally belligerent expansionist ideology aiming at a ‘promised planet.’

Gilad Atzmon: The Landlord Wannabe Protest

Gilad Atzmon: The Landlord Wannabe Protest

Sunday, August 7, 2011 at 10:32AM Gilad Atzmon

It is almost amusing to find out that some of the most clichéd Marxists around are so taken by the current Israeli popular protest, which they foolishly interpret as a manifestation of the ‘Israeli revolutionary spirit’. They are convinced that now that the Israeli ‘working class’ are rising, peace will necessarily prevail.
Yet in fact, what we are really seeing unfold in Israel (at least for the time being) is the total opposite of a ‘working class’ re-awakening. Indeed, some in Israel  are calling it the ‘Real Estate Protest,’ because basically, those protesting want assets: they all wish to have property, a house of their own. They want to be landlords. They want the key, and they want it now. What we see in Tel Aviv has no similarity whatsoever to the struggles taking place in al-Tahrir or in Athens. At the most, the Israeli demonstrations mimic some manifestations of a struggle for justice or Socialist protest.
But that is where the similarities end.
Motti Ashkenazi (a legendary Israeli anti establishment figure)  wrote in ynet yesterday that “another Left is needed (in Israel), a Left that is primarily concerned with the poor of its country rather than with the plight of our neighbours.” In clear terms that cannot be interpreted otherwise: Motti Ashkenazi is exploring what he considers to be a necessary shift in Israeli ‘progressive’ thought, and what he appears to conclude is, forget about Palestine; let’s once and for all concentrate on  ‘us,’ the Jews.  Ashkenazi continues,  “we need another Left, a modest one. Instead of a vision for the entire Middle East, it had better present a vision of the State of Israel.”
Professor Nissim Calderon (a  lecturer in Hebrew literature ) also presented a similar line:  “We have erected a Left that has been focusing on the fight for peace, and peace only.   But there is a huge hole in our struggle- we failed to  struggle for social justice.”  Again  ‘Lefty’ Calderon refers to the social struggle within the Israeli Jewish population.
The mass protest in Israel is, in fact, the complete opposite of a genuine social revolution: whilst it may present itself as a popular protest, in practice, it is a 'populist festival'. According to reports from Israel, the leaders of the emerging protest are even reluctant to call for Netanyahu’s resignation.  The same applies to security matters, the occupation the defence budget- the organizers wouldn’t touch these subjects in order not to split their rapidly growing support.
What we see in Israel is neither a socialist revolution; nor is it a struggle for justice. It is actually a ‘bourgeoisie wannabe revolution’, and the Israelis took to the street because each of them wants to be a landlord, to own a property. They do not care much about politics, ethics, or social awareness, and neither do they seem to care much about the war crimes they are collectively complicit in.  Malnutrition in Gaza is really not their concern either. They seem to not care about anything much at all, except themselves becoming property owners.
But why do they want to own a property? Because they cannot really rent one. And why can’t they rent? It is obviously far too expensive.  But why is it too expensive? Because Israel is the ultimate  embodiment of a corrupted, hard speculative, capitalist society.  And I guess that this is the real untold story here. If Zionism was an attempt to solve ‘the Jewish Question’ , as the author Shahid Alam so insightfully explores, it has clearly failed since it has only managed to relocate 'the Jewish Question' to a new place, i.e. Palestine.
Zionism promised to bring about a new productive and ethical Jew as opposed to what it defined as the ‘Jewish Diaspora speculative capitalist’(1). It clearly failed, and the truth of the matter is, that in the Jewish State, Israeli Jews are now being  subjected to the symptoms of their own very problematic culture.(2)
Israel, that was supposed to be the state of the Jewish people, has become a  haven  for  the richest  and most corrupted Jews from around the world: according to The Guardian, “out  of the seven oligarchs who controlled 50% of Russia’s economy during the 1990s, six were Jewish.”  During the last two decades, many Russian  oligarchs  have acquired  Israeli citizenship. They also secured their dirty money by investing in the Blue & White financial haven.  Wiki leaks has revealed lately that “sources in the (Israeli) police estimate that Russian organised crime (Russian Mafia) has laundered as much as US $10 billion through Israeli holdings." (3) Mega-swindlers such as Bernie Madoff  have been channeling their money via Zionists and Israeli institutions for decades. Israel is also a leading trader in blood  diamonds. Far from being surprising, Israel is also the fourth biggest weapon dealer on the planet. Clearly, blood diamonds and guns are proving to be a great match. And it doesn’t stop there -- every so often, Israel is caught engaging in organ trafficking and organ harvesting.
Increasingly, Israel seems to be nothing more than a vast  money-laundering  haven for Jewish oligarchs, swindlers, weapons dealers, organ traffickers, organised crime, and blood-diamond traders. But on top of that, rich Jews buy their holiday homes in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem: there are reports that in Tel Aviv alone, thousands of holiday properties are empty, all year round, while native Israelis cannot find a roof.
The Israeli people are yet to understand their role within this horror show: the Israeli people are yet to grasp that they are nothing but the foot soldiers in this increasingly horrendous scenario. They do not even gather that their  state maintains  one of the world’s strongest armies, to defend the assets of just a few of the wealthiest and most immoral  Jews around.
I actually wonder whether Israelis can grasp it all. Yet the truth of the matter is, that the leaders of the present Israeli ‘real estate revolution’ want to maintain the struggle as a material seeking adventure, and they are clearly avoiding politics: the driving sentiment and motivation here is, obviously, ‘give us the keys to our new homes and we clear the square.’
I guess that it is not surprising that within such an inherently greedy and racially oriented society, the dissent that manifests will inevitably, also be reduced to sheer banal materialism.
It seems the Israelis cannot rescue themselves from their own doomed fate, , because  they are blindly  hijacked by their own destructive culture.  As myself and a few others have been predicting for a decade or more, Israeli  society is about to implode. It is really just a question of time.
Gilad Atzmon's latest book is The Wandering Who.

1. Marxist Zionist Ber Borochov (1881-1917) argued that the class structure of European Jewry resembled an inverted 'class-pyramid', a structure in which a relatively small number of Jews occupied roles within the ‘productive layers’ of society as workers, whilst a significant number were settled in capitalist and speculative trades such as banking.
2. In Haaretz today Beni Ziper wrote, “I saw on television people shouting against the rich, or tycoons who control the country. Seemingly everyone thinks it's exciting and daring and nobody reflects on  the chilling historical  equivalence with the Depression in Germany at the time of  Weimar Republic, when the ‘rich Jews who control us’ were targeted by everyone.”  Ziper is clever enough to notice a close and disturbing repetition in Jewish history. However, Ziper is also very critical of his countrymen.  “So I'm all for protests against the state, but in no way against people or groups of people, be they ‘rich’ or ‘ (Jewish) Orthodox’ or even ‘settlers’.  Whoever gives privileges to the settlers in this country and it's not that the settlers come and rob the cashier at gunpoint.” Whether we agree with Ziper or not, it is clear that he also admits that there is a similarity between the arguments voiced in Israel against the rich, and the German right wing's anti Semitic attitude towards Jews in the 1920’s-30’s
3. For more information about global organised crime connections with Likud or other major Israeli political parties, follow this link http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/topic.php?tid=147

Gilad Atzmon-Time is Ripe For a Paradigm Shift

Time is Ripe For a Paradigm Shift

By Gilad Atzmon on April 27, 2011
Gilad Atzmon – gilad.co.uk April 27, 2011

It is slightly embarrassing for me to admit that sometime  Zionists are actually well ahead of our favourite  intellectuals in understanding the depth of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is not that they are more clever, they are just free to explore the conflict without being subject to the tyranny of ‘political correctness’, also being proud  nationalist Jews- they do not need  the approval of the Jewish left thought police.

I have recently come across a short Haaretz article by Israeli writer A.B. Yehoshua*.

Yehoshua is a proud Zionist, He believes in the right of his people to dwell on Palestinian land.  He is also convinced that the Jewish state is the true meaning of contemporary Jewish life. I guess that Yehoshua loves himself almost as much as I despise everything he stands for and yet, I have to confess, he seems to grasp the depth of the Israeli Palestinian conflict’s parameters  slightly better than most  solidarity activists I can think of.

In his Haaretz article Yehoshua stressed that Zionism was “something original and one of its kind  in human history- A folk arrived  at the homeland of another folk attempting to replace the old identity with a new/old  identity”. Yehoshua  also counters the faulty colonial paradigm and practically repeats my own theses almost  word by word. “There was also no (Zionist) attempt to impose a colonial regime, since the Jews had no (mother) state that could have sent them to perform a colonial conquests like in the case of England or France.”

Yehoshua, is certainly correct here, as much as some amongst us are contend to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically. The Colonial paradigm is simply a fantasy that is clumsily imposed on our discourse in a desperate attempt to make the Israeli/Palestinian conflict meaningful within a decaying Marxist discourse.

Yehoshua  continues, the Israeli/Palestinian  conflict will not be resolved because it’s a totally unique conflict  in human history. “There is no historical precedence for a nation that decides to return to its ancient homeland and  establish its sovereignty there.” Whether the conflict will be resolved or not is indeed a crucial question. I am not so sure that Yehoshua knows the answer or even can contemplate a reality in which the Jewish State belongs to the past. However, Yehoshua is obviously correct in his reading of the uniqueness of the Zionist history. We are dealing  here with an exceptional and unprecedented national aspiration driving by racist impetus. But Yehoshua takes it further. “Thus,” he says, If we all accept that the modern return of Jews to Zion is a unique event in human history – then the Palestinian people, unlike any other people, had  to face a totally unique phenomenon.” If we accept that Zionism is an abnormal political ideology and practice, then, Palestinian nationalism  (that is defined by  negation to abnormality) must be also a unique to say the least.

I must admit that Yehoshua’s stand is well argued and totally valid. However, it means that all comparative  models  such as the colonial paradigm are doomed to crash. Jewish nationalism doesn’t fit into any available template, it formulates a model of its own.

According to Yehoshua, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not really about territorial issues. “Territorial issues can be resolved” he says.  “In our conflict, both sides, struggle over national identity of the whole country.” Yehoshua offers here a very interesting insight that cannot be uttered within the boundaries of the Left discourse. For both parties, especially the Palestinians, he says,  “it is unclear what is the size of the people it is up against, is it only the Israelis or is it also the Jewish Diaspora as a whole.” Yehoshua raises here an issue I myself have been stressing for years. It is far from being clear to anyone (including  Israelis and Jews) where Israel ends and the Diaspora starts. It is also far from being clear where the Israeli ends and the Jew starts. I guess that for most contemporary Jews it is even far from being clear anymore where Zionism ends and Judaism starts. In the contemporary Jewish world there are no clear dichotomies. We are dealing with a spineless elastic metamorphic identity that shapes itself to fit every possible circumstances. This may explain how come the Jewish state can dually operate as an oppressor and a victim simultaneously.

The Israelis, according to Yehoshua are also subject to a similar confusion. They also cannot figure out whether it is just the Palestinian people they are up against or is it the whole Arab nation or even the entire Muslim world.  For Yehoshua, the conflict “lacks a clear demographic boundaries. This fact alone creates an initial deep distrust between the two peoples that prevents a possible solution.”

Yeshoua is far from being a brilliant mind, yet, he manages to analyse the conflict correctly just because he is free to think out of the Leftist box. Being a proud Israeli Jew he is free to say what he thinks without the need to appease half a dozen so-called ‘progressive’  Jews.  Yehoshua’s analysis makes a lot of sense to me though we draw the complete opposite conclusions. I believe that ti the Palestinian solidarity discourse  better liberate itself of any form of  dogmatic political thinking. It is about time  and look at the conflict for what it is.  We must engage in a true plural debate and emancipate ourselves of any traces of rigid and anachronistic thinking.

Gilad Atzmon-Drama in London

Drama in London

By Gilad Atzmon on April 28, 2011
Gilad Atzmon – gilad.co.uk April 28, 2011

A panel discussion titled ‘Zionism, Jewishness and Israel’ will take place at The University of Westminster – Cavendish Campus on Tuesday May the 3rd, from 6:30pm – 8:00pm.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160038250722935

As one may imagine, the Zionist operators in Britain are not happy about the meeting at all: ‘Green Engage’, a Zionist anti-BDS campaign group launched an immediate campaign, soon after the announcement of the panel. Far from being surprising, within hours, they were joined by Tony Greenstein  and  the so called Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network.

The original panel was supposed to include John Rose, Ghada Karmi, Alan Hart and myself. 

The venue as well as the panelists (except myself funnily enough) came under severe pressure that verged on abuse: one of the panelists admitted to the organisers that he had received twelve phone calls from different Jewish ‘anti-Zionist’ activists, who insisted that — ‘for the sake of Palestine’— no one should share a stage with Gilad Atzmon.

Now, interestingly enough, when I asked the panelist whether any Palestinians had actually called to preach for the ‘sake of Palestine’ — the answer was a resounding negative. I guess  that Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ know better than everyone what is good for Palestine, they are chosen after all.

John Rose and Ghada Karmi pulled out, and that is understandable: not many can endure such a level of abuse — as we learnt recently, Judge Goldstone has also surrendered, and by doing so, has severely damaged his credibility and reputation.

In the early days I myself struggled a lot: on a daily basis I would hear from one  ‘progressive’ Jew or another who I should like and who I should hate.  Being a rebel, I never followed any of these ‘instructions’. It took me years to develop a very thick skin, to believe in myself and to believe in ethical thinking. And, having done so, I am now happier and free, and I continue in the spirit of humanism and resistance.

Resisting Zionist tactics then, the organisers of the event and the venue are undeterred, standing strong, and determined to continue with the original plan:  a list of Palestinian intellectuals and journalists stepped immediately in place of Ghada and John. I advised the organisers not to publish their names for the time being, simply to save them from the unnecessary irritation, annoyance and abuse.  However, I myself made sure that they are fully aware of the possible trouble ahead.

This event is promising to be a turning point — The relentless attempts by Jewish political bodies to gate-keep the discourse needs to be confronted and exposed. 

And I guess that what we see here proves beyond doubt my arguments regarding the duplicity that is tragically manifested all too often by different bodies and individuals within the Jewish ‘anti-Zionist’ network.

Come and support freedom and intellectual exchange
Panel Event: Zionism, Jewishness and Israel
Time:            Tuesday, May 3 · 6:30pm – 8:00pm
Location: University Of Westminster – Cavendish Campus
A panel discussion examining Israeli Criminality in the wake of the Goldstone Retract.
Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon and others

 (Facebook event Announcement)

“Despite the huge pressures from certain Zionist and “anti-zionist” groups, John Rose and Ghada Karmi have pulled but have been replaced with a number of other high profile and brilliant speakers.

A lot of criticism has been mounted about the fact that the event is putting “Jewishness” into the debate with Zionism and Israel. The fact that Israel calls itself the “Jewish State” warrants that we as rational, critical individuals must at least enquire and question what this may mean.

This is not anti-semitic nor racist, and in fact every religion has been subject to these criticisms and enquiries, and in a truly democratic society, any exclusive belief that posits itself as the truth must be scrutinised and put under the spotlight.”