Opinion Editorials, March 2008
The Right to Self-Determination: A Fake Exercise in Universalism
By Gilad Atzmon
ccun.org, March 23, 2008
The right to self-determination is a
luxurious approach at conservation of power reserved for the rich,
strong and privileged. Since Zionists hold the reigns on
international political power through their influence in important
positions as well as the military might to maintain their ‘right to
self-determination’, any current political debate on the legitimacy
of this concept would lead inevitably to a dismissal of what we have
come to accept as the Palestinian right of self-determination. Yet,
instead of demanding this right, which is currently impractical, we
should fight for the Palestinian and Arab right to rebel against the
Jewish State and against global Zionist imperialism. Instead of
wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies, we better expose Jewish
tribal politics and praxis for what it is. To support Palestine is
to be courageous enough to say what we think and to admit what we
see.
A Citizen of the World, A
Cosmopolitan and an Atheist
Last year in a little community
church in Aspen, Colorado, at the question time following my talk, a
middle-aged person at the back of the room stood up, presenting
himself as follows:
“I am a citizen of the world, I am a
cosmopolitan and an atheist. I would like to ask you something Mr
Atzmon…”
“Hang on,” I stopped him, “please do
not be offended by me asking, but are you by any chance a Jew?”
The person froze for a second, he
couldn’t stop his face from blushing, everyone in the room turned
around. Maybe they were curious enough to want to see what a 21st
century self-loving cosmopolitan looks like. I, on my part, felt a
bit guilty about it all, I didn’t have any intention to embarrass
the man. However, it took him a few good seconds before he could get
his act together.
“Yes Gilad, I am a Jew, but how did
you know?”
“I obviously didn’t know,” I said, “I
was actually guessing. You see, whenever I come across people who
call themselves ‘cosmopolitans’, ‘atheists’ and a ‘citizens of the
world’, they somehow always happen to be ‘Jews’ of the so-called
‘progressive’ assimilated type. I can only assume that ‘non-Jews’
tend to live in peace with whoever they happen to be. If they are
born Catholic and decide to move on at a certain stage, they just
dump the church behind. If they do not love their country as much as
others do, they probably pack a few things and pick another country
to live in. Somehow ‘non-Jews’, and this is far from being a
scientific law, do not need to hide behind some vague universal
banners and some artificial righteous value system. However, what
was your question?”
No question followed. The ‘cosmopolitan,
atheist and citizen of the world’, couldn’t remember what his
question was. I assume that following the tradition of
post-emancipated Jews he was there to celebrate his right to
‘self-determination’ in public. The man was using question time to
tell his Aspen neighbours and friends what a great human being he
was. Unlike them, local patriotic believers and proud Americans, he
was an advanced humanist, a man beyond nationhood, a godless
non-patriotic subject. He was the ultimate ‘self determined’
rational product of enlightenment. He was the son of Voltaire and
the French revolution.
Self-determination is a modern Jewish political
and social epidemic. The disappearance of the Ghetto and its
maternal qualities led towards an identity crisis within the largely
assimilated Jewish society. Seemingly, all post-emancipated Jewish
political, spiritual and social schools of thought, left, right and
centre were inherently concerned with issues to do with the ‘right
to self-determination’. The Zionists would demand the right to
national self-determination in the land of Zion. The Bund would
demand national and cultural self-determination within the East
European proletarian discourse. Matzpen and the ultra Israeli
leftists would demand the right to self-determination for the
‘Israeli Jewish nation’ in the ‘liberated Arab East’, Anti Zionist
Jews would insist upon the right to engage in an esoteric Jewish
discourse within the Palestinian solidarity movement. But what does
that very right to self-determination stand for? Why is it that
every modern Jewish political thought is grounded on that right? Why
is it that some ‘progressive’ assimilated Jews feel the need to
become citizens of the world rather than just ordinary citizens of
Britain or France or Russia?
The Pretence of Authenticity
It should be said that though identity search
and self-determination are there to convey the pretence of a final
march towards an authentic redemption, the direct result of Identity
politics and self-determinative affairs is the complete opposite.
Those who have to self-determine who they are, are those who are far
removed from any authentic realisation to start with. Those who are
determined to be seen as ‘cosmopolitans’ and ‘secular humanists’ are
those who fail to see that human brotherhood needs neither an
introduction nor a declaration. All it really takes is a genuine
love for one another. Those who initiate and sign humanist
manifestos are those who insist upon being seen as humanists while
at the same time spreading some Zionist tribal evil around. Clearly,
real genuine cosmopolitans do not have the need to declare their
abstract commitment to humanism. Real citizens of the world,
similarly, just live in an open world with no boundaries and
borders.
I am surrounded, for instance, by jazz
musicians of all colours and ethnic origins. People who live on the
road, people who sleep every night in a different continent, people
who make a living out of their love of beauty. Yet, I have never
seen a Jazz artist who calls himself or herself either a citizen of
the world or a cosmopolitan or even a beauty merchant. I have never
met a Jazz artist who adopts an air of egalitarian importance. I
have never met a Jazz musician who celebrates his or her right to
self-determination. The reason is simple, authentic beings do not
need to self determine who they are, they just let themselves and
others be.
The right to self-determination
The right to self-determination is often cited
as the acknowledgment that "all peoples have the right to freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development.” This very principle is often
seen as a moral and legal right. It is also well embedded in the
philosophy of the United Nations. The term self-determination was
used in the UN Charter and has been defined in various declarations
and covenants.
Though we all tend to believe that
every human is entitled to celebrate his or her symptoms, the right
to self-determination is in fact significantly meaningful only
within the Western liberal discourse which accepts such a right and
premises it on the notion of enlightened individualism. Moreover,
the right to self-determination can be celebrated only by the
privileged who can mobilize enough political power or military might
to make this right into a practical reality.
However, it must be mentioned that
even within the Western liberal discourse, it is only Jews who
premise their political power on the ‘right to be like others’. The
reason is simple, though liberated Jews insist upon being ‘like
others’, it is rather clear that others prefer actually to be ‘like
themselves’. This obviously means that the Jewish demand to be like
others is futile and doomed to failure.
It must be mentioned also that within
oppressed societies, the right to self-determination is often
replaced with the right to rebel. For a Palestinian in the occupied
territories, the right for self-determination means very little. He
doesn’t need to self-determine himself as a Palestinian for the
obvious reason that he knows who he is. And just in case he happens
to forget, an Israeli soldier in the next roadblock would remind
him. For the Palestinian, self-determination is a product of
negation. It is actually the daily confrontation with the Zionist
denial of the Palestinian right of self-determination. For the
Palestinian, it is the right to fight against oppression, against
those who starve him and expel him from his land in the name of the
Jewish rather-too-concrete demand to be ‘people like other people’.
As much, as the right to self-determination
presents itself as a universal liberating political value, in many
cases it is utilised as a divisive mechanism that leads towards
direct abuse of others. As we happen to learn, modern Jewish demand
for the right to self-determination is rather too often celebrated
at the expense of others whether these are Palestinians, Arab
leaders, Russian proletariats or British and American soldiers who
fight the last pocket of Israeli enemies in the Middle East. As much
as the right to self-determination is occasionally presented has a
‘universal value’, scrutinising the pragmatic sinister utilization
of the very right within the Jewish political discourse reveals that
in practical terms, it is there to serve the Jewish tribal interests
while denying and even dismissing other people’s elementary rights.
The Bund and Lenin’s Criticism
It would be right to say that the
Bund and the Zionists were the first to eloquently insist upon the
Jewish right to self-determination. The Bund was the General Jewish
Workers' Union of East Europe. Like the Zionist movement, it was
formally founded in 1897. It maintained that Jews in Russia deserved
the right to cultural and national self-determination within the
Soviet future revolution.
Probably, the
first to elaborate on the absurdity in Jewish demand for
self-determination was Lenin in his famous attack on the Bund at the
Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.
(1903). “March with us” was Lenin’s reply to the Bund,
rejecting their demand for a special autonomous ethnic status
amongst the Russian workers. Lenin obviously spotted the tribally
divisive agenda within the Bund philosophy. “We reject,” said Lenin,
“all obligatory partitions that serve to divide us”. As much
as Lenin supported “the right of nations to self-determination”, he
was clearly dismissive of such a Jewish right which he correctly
identified as divisive and reactionary. Lenin supported the right of
oppressed nations to build their national entities, however he
resisted any bigoted, narrow nationalist spirit.
Lenin raised three main reasons
against the Bund and its demand of cultural self-determination:
First. Raising the slogan of
cultural-national autonomy leads to splitting the nations apart, and
therefore destroying the unity of the proletariat within them.
Second. Lenin saw that the
intermingling of nations and their amalgamation was a progressive
step, while turning away from that is a step backwards. He
criticized those who "cry out to heaven against assimilation."
Third. Lenin did not regard the
‘non-territorial cultural independence’ advocated by the Bund and
the other Jewish parties as advantageous, practical, or practicable.
Lenin’s approach to the Bund is
rather significant and should be reflected upon. Using his sharp
political common sense, Lenin doubted the ethical and political
grounds of the right of Jews to self-determination, as much as the
Bund demanded that Jews should be treated as a national identity
like all other nationals. Lenin’s answer was strictly simple: “Sorry
guys, but you aren’t. You are not a national minority just for the
reason that you are not attached to a piece of geography.”
Matzpen and Wolfowitz
“The solution
of the national and social problems of this region can come about
only through a socialist revolution in this region, which will
overthrow all its existing
regimes and will replace them by a political union of the
region, ruled by the toilers. In this united and liberated Arab
East, recognition will be granted to the right of
self-determination (including the right to a separate
state) of each of the non-Arab nationalities living in the region,
including the Israeli-Jewish nation”
(Matzpen Principles
http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=principles)
Seemingly, Lenin’s criticism has never been
properly internalised by Jewish so-called ‘progressive’ ideologists.
Abuse of others and dismissal of elementary rights has become
inherent to Jewish ‘progressive’ political thinking. Reading the
principle document of Matzpen, the legendary ultra leftist Israeli
group may leave one perplexed.
Already in 1962 Jewish Matzpenists had a plan
to ‘liberate’ the Arab world. According to Matzpen’s principles, all
you have to do is “overthrow all (Arab) existing regimes”
so “recognition will be granted to the right of
self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities
living in the region, including (of course) the
Israeli-Jewish nation.”
It doesn’t take a genius to grasp that at least
categorically, Matzpen’s principles are no different from
Wolfowitz’s Neocon mantra. Matzpen had a plan to ‘overthrow’ all
Arabs regimes in the name of ‘socialism’ so Jews can
‘self-determine’ who they are. Wolfowitz would do exactly the same
in the name of ‘democracy’. If you take Matzpen’s Judeo-centric
‘progressive’ text and replace the word ‘Socialist’ with
‘Democratic’ you end up with a devastating Neocon text and it reads
as follows:
“The solution of the national and social
problems of this region, can come about only through a
democratic revolution in this region, which will
overthrow all its existing regimes and will replace them by a
political union of the region …Recognition will be granted to the
right of self-determination of each of the non-Arab nationalities
living in the region, including the Israeli-Jewish nation.”
Seemingly, both the ‘legendary’ progressive
Matzpen and the reactionary despised Neocons use a similar abstract
concept with some pretence of universality to rationally justify the
Jewish right to self-determination and the destruction of Arab-grown
regional power. Seemingly, both Neocons and Matzpen know what
liberation may mean for Arabs. For the Matzpenist, to liberate Arabs
is to turn them into Bolsheviks. The Neocon is actually slightly
more modest, all he wants is for Arabs to drink Coca Cola in a
westernised democratic society. Both Judeo-centric philosophies are
doomed to failure because the notion of self-determination is
overwhelmingly Euro-centric. Both philosophies are premised on an
enlightened notion of rationality. Both philosophies have very
little to offer to the oppressed, instead they are there to
rationalise and provide the colonialist with some fake ‘universal’
legitimacy.
Clearly, Matzpen has never had any political
power, it never had any political significance since it has never
been in any proximity to Arab people, not to say Arab masses.
Consequently, Matzpen could never affect Arab people’s lives nor
could it destroy their regimes. However, Matzpen is seen by Jewish
Leftists around the world as a significant chapter in the Israeli
left. It is seen as a singular moment of Israeli ethical awakening.
Thus, it is actually embarrassing or even devastating to find out
that the most enlightening and refined moment of Israeli-left moral
awakening produced a political insight that is no different
categorically to George Bush’s infamous attempt at Liberating the
Iraqi people. It should be clear beyond doubt that Jewish ultra
leftists (a la Matzpen) and Zionised Anglo-American
interventionism (a la Neocons) are in fact two sides of the
same coin or may I allow myself to say two sides of the very same
Shekel. They are very close theoretically, ideologically and
pragmatically. Both political thoughts are Judeo-centric to the bone
yet, they both pretend to premise themselves on universalism and aim
towards ‘liberation’ and ‘freedom’. But at the end of the day they
aim toward Jewish self-determination at the expense of others.
The Right to be Like Others -The
Zionist Logic
The following is
a collection of extracts taken from a
document
submitted to the United Nations COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS in 2005.
It was composed by the Coordinating Board of
Jewish Organizations (CBJO) and B'nai B'rith. It helps to grasp how
Jewish organisations implement political power around the claim for
self-determination.
As a point of historical departure of
its statement, the CBJO chooses the ‘end of the Holocaust’ and the
creation of the UN. The link is rather clear and intentional. The
role of the UN is set as one that will save the Jews from any
further genocidal attempts.
“As the world marks the 60th
anniversaries of the end of the Holocaust and the creation of the
United Nations this year, we in the human rights community have the
opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principles contained
in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other foundation documents of the international human
rights regime. One of the most fundamental of these rights is that
of self-determination. This right guarantees other human rights,
such as the right to life, liberty and security of person,
preservation of honor, equality under the law.”
It can be seen that at this stage the right to
self-determination is conveyed in universal terms. But do not let
yourself be misled just yet. It won’t take long before the Zio-centric
twist will reveal itself.
“The events revealed sixty years ago when
Allied forces entered and liberated the Nazi concentration camps
could have been prevented if only the Jewish people's
right to self-determination had been protected and
fostered…. As the history of the Jewish people in the 20th century
demonstrates, without a State of their own – the fulfillment of the
right to self-determination – the Jewish people were at risk of
discrimination, isolation, and ultimately, extermination.”
Slowly but surely, we can now see the shift
from the universal ethical approach to a Judeo-centric self-centred
argumentation. However, it is crucial to mention that prior to the
big war western and American Jews were emancipated and enjoyed
rights to self-determination, yet not many Jews thought that such a
right should be celebrated in Palestine at the expense of the
Palestinian people. Moreover, thinking in retrospective terms makes
it rather clear that the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’ has
brought Holocaust on the Palestinian people. In other words, the
Jewish right to self-determination has very limited positive impact
on humanity and human reality. Something the UN Human Rights
Commission better take into account.
“As we reflect on this history, we must note
the resurgence of anti-Semitism, and its new manifestation –
anti-Zionism. In various intellectual circles, on university
campuses and in the media, the Jewish people’s basic human
right to self-determination is being eroded on a daily
basis through misrepresentations and false equations. These
anti-Zionists portray the Jewish people’s self-determination as
excluding Palestinian self-determination. Some wish to turn back the
clock of history by advancing a "one-state” solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a proposal that was rejected by the
General Assembly in 1947 precisely because it would have denied the
Jewish people their right of self-determination….
Anti-Zionism is a dangerous path, for it hinges on the destruction
of the Jewish State. As such it runs counter to the Charter of the
United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights….”
Interestingly enough, the gifted people at the
CBJO do realise that sooner or later someone is about to question
the ethical validity of the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. In
fact this is exactly what I myself plan to do within a page or two.
Zionists are clever enough to grasp the possibility that their ‘carte
blanche’ to ruin millions of lives in the Middle East in the
name of fake universal concept may expire one day.
However, the CBJO are aiming towards
an optimistic resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This
is at least what they want us to believe:
“Today, we see remarkable progress in the
Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian
people have elected a government – one that has pledged to reject
terrorism as a political weapon in favor of democracy and peace.
This path of promoting peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people
marks an important turning point from the Palestinian policy of
violence. …All resolutions passed by this body under this agenda
item should seek to affirm the right to self-determination for the
Jewish people alongside that of other peoples…. Only then will the
Commission on Human Rights be true to its founding principles. Only
then will the CHR be part of the solution, instead of exacerbating
the problem. Only then will this body demonstrate that it has
retained the lessons that should have been learned 60 years ago,
upholding and defending the basic right of the Jewish
people to self-determination alongside a democratic
Palestinian State.”
As we can see, the CBJO is there to tell the
Palestinians who they are and what they should be. i.e., democratic
and secular. Wrongly enough, the right-wing CBJO is no different to
the legendary ‘progressive’ Matzpen and the implications must be
clear from now on. There is no left and right within modern secular
Jewish politics but rather self-centric tribal orientation which
produces fake images of political diversity for obvious reasons.
One State, Two States or Just a State
Of All Its Citizens
Not many Palestinians and Arab intellectuals
take part in the One State/Two State debate. The reason is pretty
obvious, Palestinians and Arabs do realise very well that issues to
do with the future of the region are not to be determined by
academic institutes or Palestinian solidarity conferences but rather
on the ground. The impact of a single Qassam rocket hitting in the
Western Negev is far greater than any form of intellectual
conclusive discussion to do with ‘conflict resolution’. As it seems,
the demand for ‘one State’, be it secular, democratic or Islamic is
theoretical and rhetorical and has no implication whatsoever on the
Israelis who still possess the political power and military might to
maintain the Jews-only State.
As much as the notion of self-determination has
zero significance on Palestinian people, the same is so for the
verbal demand for one State. At a time of starvation in Gaza and
genocidal plans announced by the Israeli Government, debates
regarding the future of the region seem to be a luxurious endeavour
explored by the privileged.
If anything, the debate over the one
State solution is there to maintain the Israeli and Jewish hegemony
within the Palestinian solidarity discourse. The reason is pretty
simple, every discussion that aims at political resolution naturally
takes into account the ‘Jewish right to self-determination’. This
would be the case forever unless we allow ourselves to introduce a
radical political and intellectual shift into the discourse. Like
Lenin in 1903, we must call into question the true validity of the
notion of the right to self-determination. Following Lenin, we
should allow ourselves to admit the possibility that the Jewish
right to self-determination is actually divisive or may even be a
false call. It is there to be celebrated by the rich and colonial
and the privileged at the expense of the weak and the oppressed.
We should stand up and ask openly why
exactly Jews or anyone else deserves a right to self-determination.
Isn’t it true that the right to self-determination always comes at
the expense of someone else? We should stand up and ask, what moral
right entitles a Brooklyn Jew to self-determine oneself as a Zionist
and a future occupier of Palestine? We should openly ask what
exactly entitles an Israeli born Jew the right to dwell on
Palestinian land at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian? Am I
entitled to demand the right to self-determine myself as a NASA
Astronaut, or alternatively as a heart surgeon? Would you let me fix
your heart based on my false self-inflicted recognition as a heart
surgeon?
These questions are far from being easy to
answer. Yet, we shouldn’t stop ourselves from raising them. Like
Lenin, I tend to dismiss the Jewish legitimacy of the right to
self-determination as a false divisive call. Instead, I would
suggest an alternative ethical approach, which I borrowed from Ex MK
Azmi Bishara (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azmi Bishara),
the Palestinian intellectual who had to run for his life from Israel
in spite of being a Parliament member. Bishara moved beyond the one
State/ two State debate or the Judeo-centric right to
self-determination. He coined a brilliant political notion, namely
‘a State of all its Citizens’. Rather than a State of the Jews,
Bishara suggested to make it into a State of the people who dwell in
it.
Azmi Bishara is a vigorous intellectual and a
well-known critic of the Israeli State. In numerous writings and
public appearances, he has maintained that the Israeli State's
self-definition as ‘Jewish and democratic’ is discriminatory.
Bishara calls for an Israel that would be a ‘State of all its
citizens.’ Bishara has openly pointed to a direct conflict between
the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority over the definition
of nationality in Israel. He articulates a trend among the
Arab-Palestinian minority that poses a demand for socio-economic and
political equality not only in formal law, but in civic citizenship
and nationality. It would be right to say that Bishara’s approach is
a political exercise in the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Consequently, however, it didn’t take long before Bishara had to run
for his life and search for a shelter out of Israel.
As we have seen, the right to
self-determination is a luxurious approach at conservation of power.
It is not going to be celebrated by any group but those who are
already rich, strong and privileged. Zionists can boast all these
qualities, as well as possessing the necessary power and military
might to maintain their ‘right to self-determination’. However,
given the reality on the ground, instead of demanding some
rhetorical rights, we should fight for the Palestinian and Arab
right to rebel against the Jewish State and against global Zionist
imperialism. Instead of wasting our time on rhetorical fantasies and
academic exchange, we better expose Jewish tribal politics and
praxis. To support Palestine is to be courageous enough to say what
we think and to admit what we see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||||
