Al-Jazeerah History
Archives
Mission & Name
Conflict Terminology
Editorials
Gaza Holocaust
Gulf War
Isdood
Islam
News
News Photos
Opinion
Editorials
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
www.aljazeerah.info
|
|
War On Terror Within:
The End of Jewish History
By Gilad Atzmon
ccun.org, March 26, 2009
The issue I am going to discuss today is probably the most important
thing I’ve ever had to say about Israeli brutality and contemporary Jewish
identity. I assume that I could have shaped my thought into a wide-ranging
book or an analytical academic text but instead, I will do the very
opposite, I will make it as short and as simple as possible. In the
weeks that have just passed we had been witness to an Israeli genocidal
campaign against the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza. We had been
witnessing one of the strongest armies in the world squashing women, elderly
people and children. We saw blizzards of unconventional weapons bursting
over schools, hospitals and refugee camps. We had seen and heard about war
crimes committed before, but this time, the Israeli transgression was
categorically different. It was supported by the total absolute majority of
the Israeli Jewish population. The IDF military campaign in Gaza
enjoyed the
support of 94% of the Israeli population. 94% of the Israelis apparently
approved of the air raids against civilians. The Israeli people saw the
carnage on their TV screens, they heard the voices, they saw hospitals and
refugee camps in flames and yet, they weren’t really moved by it all. They
didn’t do much to stop their “democratically elected” ruthless leaders.
Instead, some of them grabbed a seat and settled on the hills overlooking
the Gaza Strip to
watch their army turning Gaza into modern Hebraic coliseum of blood.
Even now when the campaign seems to be over and the scale of the carnage in
Gaza has been revealed, the Israelis fail to show any signs of remorse. As
if this is not enough, all throughout the war, Jews around the world rallied
in support of their “Jews-only state”. Such a popular support of
outright war crimes is unheard of. Terrorist states do kill, yet they are
slightly shy about it all. Stalin’s USSR did it in some remote Gulags,
Nazi Germany executed its victims in deep forests and behind barbed wire. In
the Jewish state, the Israelis slaughter defenceless women, children and the
old in broad daylight, using unconventional weapons targeting schools,
hospitals and refugee camps. This level of group barbarism cries for
an explanation. The task ahead can be easily defined as the quest for a
realisation of Israeli collective brutality. How is it that a society has
managed to lose its grip of any sense of compassion and mercy? The
Terror Within More than anything else, the Israelis and their
supportive Jewish communities are terrorised by the brutality they find in
themselves. The more ruthless the Israelis are, the more frightened they
become. The logic is simple. The more suffering one inflicts on the other,
the more anxious one becomes of the possible potential deadly capacity
around. In broad terms, the Israeli projects on the Palestinian, Arab,
Muslim and Iranian the aggression which he finds in himself. Considering the
fact that Israeli brutality is now proved to be with no limit and with no
comparison, their anxiety is as at least as great. Seemingly, the
Israelis are fearful of themselves being the henchmen. They are engaged in a
deadly battle with the terror within. But the Israeli is not alone.
The Diaspora Jew who rallies in
support of
a state that pours white phosphorous on civilians is caught in the exact
same devastating trap. Being an enthusiastic backer of an overwhelming
crime, he is horrified by the thought that the cruelty he happens to find in
himself may manifest itself in others. The Diaspora Jew who supports Israel
is devastated by the imaginary possibility that a brutal intent, similar to
his own, may one day turn against him. This very concern is what the fear of
anti-Semitism is all about. It is basically the projection of the collective
Zio-centric tribal ruthlessness onto others. There is no Israeli -
Palestinian Conflict What we see here is a clear formation of a
vicious cycle in which the Israeli and his supporters are becoming an
insular fireball of vengeance that is fuelled by some explosive internal
aggression. The meaning of it all is pretty revealing. Since
Palestinians cannot militarily confront Israeli aggression and destructive
capacity, we are entitled to argue that there is no Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. All there is, is Israeli psychosis in which the Israeli is being
shattered with anxiety by the reflection of his own ruthlessness. Being
regarded as the Nazis of our time,
the Israeli is thus doomed to seeing a Nazi in everyone. Similarly,
there is no rise in anti-Semitism either. The Diaspora Zionist Jew is simply
devastated by the possibility that someone out there is as ethically
corrupted and merciless as he himself proved to be. In short, Israeli
politics and Zionist lobbying should be seen as no less than a lethal Zio-centric
collective paranoia on the verge of total psychosis. Is there a way
to redeem the Zionist of his bloody expedition? Is there a way to change the
course of history, to save the Israelis and their supporters from total
depravity? Probably the best way to pose this question is to ask whether
there is a way to save the Israeli and the Zionist from themselves. As one
may gather, I am not exactly interested in saving Israelis or Zionists,
however, I do grasp that redeeming Zionists of their transgression may bring
a prospect of peace to Palestine, Iraq and probably the rest of us. For
those who fail to see it, Israel is just the tip of the iceberg. At the end
of the day, America, Britain and the West are now subject to some similar
forms of
"politics of fear" that are the direct outcome of Neocon deadly
interventionist ideology and practices. The Shrink from Nazareth
Many years ago, so we are told, there was an Israelite who lived
amongst his brethren in the land of Canaan. Like the contemporary
Israelis, he was surrounded by hate, vengeance and fear. At a certain
stage he had decided to intervene and to bring a change about, he realised
that there was no other way to fight ruthlessness than to search for grace.
“Turn your other cheek” was his simple suggestion. Identifying the
Israelite’s psychosis as “a war against terror within”, Jesus grasped that
the only way to counter violence is to look in the mirror while searching
for Goodness within. It is rather apparent that Jesus’ lesson paved
the way to the formation of western universal ethics. Modern political
ideologies drew their lesson from the Christian prospect. Marx’s normative
search for equality can be seen as a secular rewriting of Jesus’ notion of
brotherhood. And yet, not a single political ideology has managed to
integrate the deepest notion of Jesus’ grace. To seek peace is primarily to
search for one within. While Israelis and their Neocon twins would aim at
achieving peace by means of deterrence, true peace is achieved by the search
for harmony within. As a Lacanian scholar may suggest, to love your
neighbour is actually to love yourself loving your neighbour. The case of
the Israeli is the complete opposite. As they manage to prove time after
time, they are really loving themselves hating their neighbours or in short,
they simply love themselves hating in general. They hate almost everything:
the neighbour, the Arab, Chavez, the German, Islam, the Goy, Pork, the Pope,
the Palestinian, the Church, Jesus, Hamas, calamari and Iran. You name
it, they hate it. One may have to admit that hating so much must be a
very consuming project unless it gives pleasure. And indeed the Israeli
“pleasure principle” could be articulated as follows: it continuously drives
the Israeli to seek pleasure in hate while inflicting pain upon others.
It must be mentioned at this point that the ˜War Against Terror within” is
not exactly a Jewish invention. Everyone, whether it is nations, peoples or
individuals, are a potential subject to it. The consequences of American
nuclear murderous slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the American
people into a terrorised collective. This collective anxiety is known as the
“cold war”. America is yet to redeem itself of the fear that there maybe
someone out there as merciless as America proved to be. To a certain
extent, operation Shock and Awe had a very similar effect on Britain and
America. It led to the creation of horrified masses easily manipulated
by highly motivated elite. This exact type of politics is called
“politics of fear”. And yet, within the western discourse a
correction mechanism is in place. Unlike the Jewish state that is getting
radicalised by its own self feeding paranoia, in the West, evil is somehow
confronted and contained eventually. The murderer is denounced and hope for
peace is somehow reinstated till further notice. Not that I hold my breath
for President Obama bringing any change, one thing is rather clear, Obama
was voted in to bring a change. Obama is a symbol of our genuine attempt to
curtail evil. In the Jewish state, not only it doesn’t happen, it can never
happen. The difference between Israel and the West is rather obvious. In the
West, Christian heritage is providing us with a possibility of a wish
grounded on belief in universal goodness. Though, we are under the constant
danger of exposure to evil, we tend to believe that goodness will eventually
prevail. On the other hand, in Hebraic tribal discourse, Goodness is the
property of the chosen. The Israelis do not see goodness or kindness in
their neighbors, they see them as savage and as a life-threatening entity.
For the Israelis, kindness is their very own property, accidentally they are
also innocent and victims. Within the western universal
discourse, goodness doesn’t belong to one people or a single nation, it
belongs to all and to none at the same time. Within the western
universal heritage, Goodness is found in each of us. It doesn’t belong to a
political party or an ideology. The elevating notion of grace and a Good God
is there in each of us, it is always very close to home. What Kind
Of Father Is That? “Then when the Lord your God brings you to the
land he promised your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give you –“ a
land with large, fine cities you did not build, houses filled with choice
things you did not accumulate, hewn out cisterns you did not dig, and
vineyards and olive groves you did not plant – and you eat your fill.” (Deuteronomy:
6: 10 -11). "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you
are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations…then you must
destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-2) At this point we may try to attempt and to
grasp the root cause behind the severe lack of compassion within the Israeli
discourse and its supportive lobbies. I believe that an elaboration on
the troubled relationships between the Jews and their different Gods may
throw some light on the topic. It is rather obvious that the ever
growing list of Jewish “Gods”, “Idols” and “Father-figures” is slightly
problematic at least as far as ethics and kindness are concerned. The very
relationship between “the son” and the “non-ethical father” must be
explored. The philosopher Ariella Atzmon (who happens to be my mother)
defines the complexity of the false beginning as the “Fagin Syndrome”.
Charles Dickens’ Fagin is a “kidsman”, an adult who recruits children and
trains them as pickpockets and thieves, exchanging food and shelter for
goods the children steal. Though the kids must be grateful towards their
master, they must also despise him for turning them into thieves and
pickpockets. The kids realise that Fagin’s goods are all stolen and his
kindness is far from being genuinely honest or pure. Sooner or later
the kids will turn against their master Fagin in an attempt to liberate
themselves of the immoral catch. From a father-son perspective,
the Biblical Jewish God Jehovah is no different from what we might see in
the Fagin syndrome. The father of Israel leads his chosen people
through the desert to the promised land so they can rob and plunder its
indigenous habitants. This is not exactly what one may expect of an ethical
father or a “kind God”. Consequently, as much as the sons of Israel love
Jehovah, they must also be slightly suspicious of him for turning them into
robbers and murderers. They might even be apprehensive regarding his
kindness. Thus, it shouldn’t take us by a surprise that throughout Jewish
history more than just a few Jews had turned against their heavenly father.
However, bearing in mind the common secularist perception that Gods are
actually invented by people, one may wonder, what leads to the invention of
such an “unethical God”? What makes people follow the rules of such a God?
It would be also interesting to find out what kind of alternative Gods Jews
happened to pick or invent once Jehovah has been shunned. Since
emancipation, more than just a few Jews had been disassociating themselves
from the traditional tribal setting and rabbinical Judaism. Many
intermingled with their surrounding realities, dropped their chosen
entitlement and turned into ordinary human beings. Many other Jews insisted
upon dropping God yet maintaining their racially orientated tribal
affiliation. They decided to base their tribal belonging on ethnic,
racial, political, cultural and ideological grounds rather than the Judaic
precept. Though they noticeably dropped Jehovah they insisted upon adopting
a secularist view that was soon shaped into a monolithic religious-like
precept. All throughout the 20th century, the two religious-like political
ideologies that had been found to be most appealing by the Jewish masses
were Marxism and Zionism. Marxism can be easily portrayed as a
secular universal ethical ideology. However, within the process of
transformation into a Jewish tribal precept, Marxism has managed to lose any
traces of humanism or universalism. As we know, early Zionist ideology and
practice was largely dominated by Jewish leftists who regarded themselves as
true followers of Marx. They genuinely believed that celebrating their
Jewish national revival at the expense of Palestinians was a legitimate
socialist endeavour. Interestingly enough, their opponents, the
anti-Zionist Bund of the East European Jewish Labour, didn’t really believe
in the institutional robbery of the Palestinians, instead, they believed
that taking from rich European is a great universal mitzvah on the path
towards social justice. The
following are a few lines from The Bund’s anthem We swear our
stalwart hate persists, Of those who rob and kill the poor: The Tsar,
the masters, capitalists. Our vengeance will be swift and sure. So
swear together to live or die! Without engaging in questions having
to do with ethics or political affiliation, it is rather obvious that the
Jewish Marxist anthem is overwhelmingly saturated with “hate” and
“vengeance”. As much as Jews were enthusiastic about Marx, Marxism,
Bolshevism and equality, the end of the story is known. Jews en masse
dropped Marx a long time ago. They somehow left the revolution to some
enlightened Goyim such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Leaders
who truly internalised in the real meaning of universal equality and ethics.
Though in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, Marxism
found many followers amongst European Jews, following the Holocaust, Zionism
has gradually become the voice of world Jewry. Like Fagin, the Zionist Gods
and Idols: Herzl, Ben Gurion, Nordau, Weizmann, promised their followers a
new unethical beginning. Robbing the Palestinians was their path
towards a long overdue historical justice. Zionism transformed the Old
Testament from a spiritual text into a land registry. But again as in
the case of Jehovah, the Zio God transformed the Jew into a thief, it
promised him someone else’s property. This in itself may explain the Israeli
resentment towards Zionism and Zionist ideology. Israelis prefer to see
themselves as the natural dwellers of the land rather than pioneers in a
non-ethical Jewish Diaspora colonial project. The Israeli Jew furnishes his
political stand by means of severe ethical escapism. This may explain the
fact that as much as the Israelis love their wars, they really hate to fight
them. They are not willing to die for a big abstract remote ideology such as
the “Jewish nation” or “Zionism”. They overwhelmingly prefer to drop white
phosphorous and cluster bombs from afar. However, along the
relatively short history of modern Jewish nationalism the Zio God made
friends with some other Gods and kosher idols. Back in 1917 Lord
Balfour promised the Jews that they would erect their national home in
Palestine. Needless to say, as in the case of Jehovah, Lord Balfour made the
Jews into plunderers and robbers, he came up with an outright non-ethical
promise. He promised the Jews someone else’s land. This was basically
a false beginning. Evidently, it didn’t take long before the Jews turned
against the British Empire. In 1947 the UN made exactly the same foolish
mistake, it gave birth to the “Jews-only State” again at the expense of the
Palestinians. It legitimised the robbery of Palestine in the name of the
nations. Like in the case of shunned Jehovah, it didn’t take long before the
Jews turned against the UN. “It doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, all that
matters is what the Jews do”, said Israeli PM David Ben Gurion. Recently
Israelis had managed to even shun their best subservient friends in the
White House. On the eve of the last American presidential election Israeli
Generals had been
filmed denouncing President Bush for “damaging Israeli interests for
being overwhelmingly supportive” (Ret. Brig General Shlomo Brom). The
Israeli Generals basically blamed Bush for not stopping Israel from
destroying its neighbours. The moral is rather clear, the Zionists and
the Israelis will inevitably turn against their Gods, Idols, fathers and
others who try to help them. This is the real meaning of the Fagin syndrome
within the Israeli political context. They will always have to turn against
their fathers. I believe that the most interesting Jewish
belief system of them all is the Holocaust Religion, which the Israeli
Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz rightly defined as the “new Jewish
religion”. The most interesting aspect of the Holocaust religion is its
God-figure, namely “the Jew”. The Jewish follower of that newly formed
dogmatic precept believes in “the Jew”, the one who redeemed oneself. The
one who “survived” the “ultimate genocidal” event. The followers believe in
“the Jew”, the “innocent” victim sufferer who returned to his “promised
land” and now celebrates his successful revival narrative. To a
certain extent, within the Holocaust religious discourse, the Jew believes
in “the Jew”, expressed as his/her powers and his/her eternal qualities.
Within the newly formed religious framework, Mecca is Tel Aviv and the Holy
Shrine is the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. The newly formed religion has
many shrines (Museums) scattered around the world and it has many priests
who spread the message around and punish its opposing elements. From a
Jewish perspective, the Holocaust religion is a fully transparent expression
of self love. It is where past and future merge into a meaningful present,
it is when history is translated into praxis. Whether consciously or
unconsciously, every person who identifies politically and ideologically
(rather than religiously) as a Jew is, practically speaking, succumbing to
the Holocaust religion and a follower of its father-figure “the Jew”. And
yet, one may wonder, what about Kindness, is there any goodness in this
newly formed ‘father-figure’? Is there any grace in this narrative of
innocent victimhood that is celebrated daily at the expense of the
Palestinian people? If there is an end to history, the Holocaust
religion embodies the very end of Jewish history. In the light of the
Holocaust religion the “Father” and the “Son” unite at last. At least
in the case of Israel and Zionism they bond into an amalgam of genocidal
ideology and reality. In the light of the Holocaust religion and its epic
survival ethos the Jewish State considers itself legitimated in dropping
white phosphorus on women and children who they have caged in an inescapable
open-air prison. Sadly enough, the crimes committed by the Jewish State are
done on behalf of the Jewish people and in the name of their troubled
history of persecution. The Holocaust religion brings to life what seems to
be the ultimate possible form of insular brutal incarnation.
Historically Jews have shunned many Gods, they dropped Jehovah, they dumped
Marx, some have never followed Zionism. But in the light of the Holocaust
religion, while bearing in mind the scenes from Gaza, Jenin and Lebanon, the
Jew may have to continue in the tradition and drop “the Jew”. He
will have to accept that his newly formed father-figure was formed in his
own shape. More concerning is the devastating fact that the new father is
proved to be a call to kill. Seemingly, the new father is the ultimate
evil God of them all. I wonder how many Jews will be courageous
enough to shun their esoteric newly formed father-figure. Will they be
courageous enough to join the rest of humanity adopting a universal ethical
discourse? Whether the Jew drops “The Jew”, only time will tell. Just
to remove any doubt, I did drop my “Jew” a long time ago and I am doing
fine.
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/03/18/gilad-atzmon-%e2%80%93-war-on-terror-within-the-end-of-jewish-history/
|
|
|