Time Is Ripe For A Paradigm Shift
Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon's Blog
It is slightly embarrassing for me to admit that sometime Zionists are actually well ahead of our favorite 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 people arrived at the homeland of another people, attempting to replace [their] 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 [inclined] to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and [that] Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically.[1] 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 [maintains] 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.[2]
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.[3] “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 analyze 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.
___________________________________________________________________________________
* The article has now disappeared from Haaretz site. You can upload an Hebrew version here [.pdf].
Editor's Comment [1] Yehoshua, is certainly correct here, as much as some amongst us are [inclined] to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and [that] Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically. While both Yehoshua and Atzmon may/may not be correct in saying that Zionism is not a colonial project, they are plainly wrong in maintaining that Israel is not a settler state. - Apart from the problem of determining whether 'Israel' is a state at all (not fixed or undetermined borders etc.), 'Israel' clearly is a settler state. In this it is not even unique. History has known abundant examples of such entities. [2] 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 [sic] to say the least. I must admit that Yehoshua’s stand is well argued and totally valid. Zionism may / may not be an “abnormal” political ideology (whatever that means), but it does not follow from this that what we may refer to as 'Zionist practice' is “abnormal” too. Abhorrent as they may be, the methods and behavior of the Zionists constitute nothing new to students of history. We have seen all of this before. So, there's nothing unique here either. Nor is Yehoshua’s stand well argued or valid. He's a second-rate Zionist windbag at most. Neither does it follow from Yehoshua’s argument that Palestinian nationalism must be “abnormal”. The Palestinians will define and develop their nationalism themselves according to their own character and distictive nature, but at this point no one, least of all a Jewish Zionist, is in a position to label it correctly. This is idealism. It also is faulty logic. In other words, it is Jewish identity politics. [3] 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. This is where Yehoshua outdoes himself entirely and where we're able to catch a glimpse of his true Zionist agenda. - In an arrogant and cavalier way he dismisses the very crux of the problem. The Zionists/the Jews may suffer from an identity problem, but as far as we can see, the Palestinians do not. The problem is indeed of a territorial nature – the Zionists have violently stolen almost all of the territory of the Palestinians. Under the circumstances, the latter cannot afford the luxury of a nacissistic discussion about “national identity”. Their agenda is about surviving the Zionist onslaught while the rest of the world looks the other way. Eventually their struggle probably will be about regaining the territory they now have lost. - So in our view, Yehoshua offers no interesting insight whatever. What he does offer however is nothing but navel-gazing, diversion and deceit. “Left discourse” is in any case a vague and very ambiguous concept. It is, if we may add, an infinitely unimportant one too. ♣ ♣ ♣ Gilad Atzmon's response [1] Yehoshua, is certainly correct here, as much as some amongst us are [inclined] to argue that Zionism is a ‘colonial project’ and [that] Israel is a ‘settler State’, such a position has no ground and cannot be supported factually or historically. Gilad Atzmon: I agree it is not necessary at all, or let’s us say, abnormal practice is not inherent to abnormal ideology. Editor: Abhorrent as they may be, the methods and behavior of the Zionists constitute nothing new to students of history. Gilad Atzmon: Actually, I am not too sure about this. I accept that Israel and Jewish identity politics are totally unique and far from being easy to analyse. Editor: We have seen all of this before. So, there's nothing unique here either. Nor is Yehoshua’s stand well argued or valid. He's a second-rate Zionist windbag at most. Gilad Atzmon: I agree about the windbag, though this one was relatively short. Editor: Neither does it follow from Yehoshua’s argument that Palestinian nationalism must be “abnormal”. The Palestinians will define and develop their nationalism themselves according to their own character and distictive nature, but at this point no one, least of all a Jewish Zionist, is in a position to label it correctly. This is idealism. It also is faulty logic. In other words, it is Jewish identity politics. Gilad Atzmon: Actually it does follow. If Jewish nationalism is a peculiar and unique historical model than its negation should also be a unique praxis in order to be effective. Such a reading may explain why Palestinian left that led Pls resistance in the 60s and the 70s fail badly. It probably wasn’t ‘unique enough’. However, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic resistance which is pretty much a new model, serves Israel with a big challenge. If I am correct, Israel doesn’t stand a chance. [3] 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. Editor: This is where Yehoshua outdoes himself entirely and where we're able to catch a glimpse of his true Zionist agenda. - In an arrogant and cavalier way he dismisses the very crux of the problem. The Zionists/the Jews may suffer from an identity problem, but as far as we can see, the Palestinians do not. Gilad Atzmon: I agree with you about this point but I am afraid that you do not grasp Yehoshua meaning. For sure there is a territorial dispute here, yet Yehoshua reckon that the two national movement are aspired by the entire land. Editor: The problem is indeed of a territorial nature – the Zionists have violently stolen almost all of the territory of the Palestinians. Under the circumstances, the latter cannot afford the luxury of a nacissistic discussion about “national identity”. Gilad Atzmon: This is true. It would be also true to argue that many amongst the 2 people are ready to compromise. And yet, the 2 national movements are fuelled by a dream of totality. Editor: Their agenda is about surviving the Zionist onslaught while the rest of the world looks the other way. Eventually their struggle probably will be about regaining the territory they now have lost. - So in our view, Yehoshua offers no interesting insight whatever. Gilad Atzmon: Actually, I think that it is a very interesting insight into the Israeli psychic. Editor: What he does offer however is nothing but navel-gazing, diversion and deceit. “Left discourse” is in any case a vague and very ambiguous concept. It is, if we may add, an infinitely unimportant one too. Gilad Atzmon: We agree about that. |
Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel in 1963 and had his musical training at the Rubin Academy of Music, Jerusalem (Composition and Jazz). As a multi-instrumentalist he plays Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Baritone Saxes, Clarinet and Flutes. His album Exile was the BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. He has been described by John Lewis on the Guardian as the “hardest-gigging man in British jazz". His albums, of which he has recorded nine to date, often explore political themes and the music of the Middle East.
Until 1994 he was a producer-arranger for various Israeli Dance & Rock Projects, performing in Europe and the USA playing ethnic music as well as R&R and Jazz.
Coming to the UK in 1994, Atzmon recovered an interest in playing the music of the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe that had been in the back of his mind for years. In 2000 he founded the Orient House Ensemble in London and started re-defining his own roots in the light of his emerging political awareness. Since then the Orient House Ensemble has toured all over the world. The Ensemble includes Eddie Hick on Drums, Yaron Stavi on Bass and Frank Harrison on piano & electronics.
Also, being a prolific writer, Atzmon's essays are widely published. His novels 'Guide to the perplexed' and 'My One And Only Love' have been translated into 24 languages.
___________________________________________________________________________________
URL: http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2011/04/27/time-is-ripe-for-a-paradigm-shift
