Palestine Think Tank

The second part of an analysis of the motivations behind the internet campaign to keep the views of Gilad Atzmon out of the "Palestinian Solidarity Campaign". Written by an objective observer, active in human rights campaigning for the past 50 years, we offer the second part of the analysis for better understanding of the reasons that drive self-styled "Anti-Zionist Jews" to seek to dictate who and what should be part of the discourse.
4. THE ACTUAL ARTICLES

a) Not in my Name

Written by Gilad Atzmon in 2004, it is an article which considers the issue of those Jews who claim to be secular and yet fight Zionism as Jews not as human beings. Jewish anti-Zionists, he says, have justified this by a) claiming their views as Jews are stronger than they would be if they were not speaking as Jews, and b) to prove there are good Jews.[11] He says in answer to a) that;

“If we believe in the transparency of a rational argument we must accept that the ethnic origin of an argument's provider should not have any effect upon its validity.” (§ 3).

Unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, this to me is quite a reasonable statement, since Israel and Zionists do not appear to take more notice of Jewish anti-Zionist opinions/arguments than of non-Jewish. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any evidence that non-Jews take any more notice. He continues the argument by proposing that Jews standing up against Zionism and saying ‘not in my name’ could be seen to imply that those Jews who do not stand up and say this are guilty.

“By saying ‘not in my name‘, they label the rest of the Jewish people as criminally liable for Zionist crime.“ (§ 5).

He goes on to say that such a personal pronouncement against certain actions of the Zionist state of Israel confirms a certain level of legitimacy. He suggests that a ‘Not in my Name’ protest to certain activities implies only a partial condemnation of the entity (Israel) with regard to these actions, and not a condemnation of the whole concept of Zionism and Israel. It is this which I think (so far) is part of what has got the Jewish left so angry. For example;

“…it is actually the sporadic rebels who criticise Zionism in the name of Jewish secular identity who affirm the Zionist totalitarian agenda. (§ 6) “Though I would appear to be blaming ‘good Jews’ for affirming Zionism I am fairly sure that those who apply such methods of resistance are far from being vicious. They are just naïve. They are presumably unaware of the implications of their marginal humanistic attitude.” (§ 9).

He states that to demand Jews to disapprove of Zionism in the name of their Jewish identity is to accept the Zionist philosophy and terminology which is predicated solely upon Jewish identity. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the logic of this criticism it is certainly not a phobic one, for it is a political/tactical criticism solely aimed at ‘the sporadic rebels’ among Jewish anti-Zionists and not extended to all Jews. He makes a similar point to one I have made elsewhere and which I repeat in the next section. It is that placing Jewish before every other label or identity suggests something unusual is happening. His examples are;

“…we have never come across an ‘Aryan for peace’, neither do we know of Russians who define themselves as ’Slavs for Human Rights’. We do not know many ’Celtic Marxists either. Such combinations sound pretty peculiar, not to say funny.” (§ 11).

In Gilad Atzmon’s view, based on this article, people should oppose Zionism in the name of humanity, not in the name of our ‘given’ religious, national, or ethnic identities. A similar opinion is presented by the philosopher Oren Ben-Dor. He argues;

“We must start not only to utter but to shout with conviction, as humans, that Israel has no moral right to preserve the premise of its statehood…” (ZNet Review, November 20, 2007).

As a humanist opponent of Israel and Zionism, I can only agree.[12] The premise of Israeli statehood is as an exclusive Jewish State, irrespective of whether this is secular orientated or religious. Gilad Atzmon then goes on to say;

“I learn from Palestinians and other supporters of the Palestinian cause that it is the Jewish and Israeli Left which defines the boundaries of the discussion. It is the Jewish Left which decides what is right and wrong….The Jewish Left is happy to denounce Sharon or Peres but any comparison between Zionism and any other manifestation of evil are forbidden. As soon as any real scrutiny of Zionism in metaphysical terms is posited, the righteous Jewish Left police will stop it immediately. As a result, Palestinian intellectuals and artists are paralysed. Most of them are terrified that if they say what they think the ’good Jews’ will label them as anti-Semites.” (§ 16).

Whether or not such an observation speaks to the experience of Palestine solidarity activists and supporters, I will leave for them to decide. However, even in this extended quote its motive is certainly not Judeophobic according to the criteria outlined above. The criticism has not been invented, further evidence to support this is contained in the polemics above. It is not extended to all Jews and it is in line with many other Jewish intellectuals thinking, (see Counterpunch ‘The Politics of Anti-Semitism‘.) who have not to my knowledge been convincingly accused of Judeophobia. He also states;

“Zionism is an extreme appearance of Jewish identity…It is racist, it is nationalist, and it is biblically inspired. Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is not categorically different from the Nazism.” (§ 16).

As noted above, this type of suggestion to my mind is no more phobic than suggesting Nazism was an extreme appearance of Germanic/Aryan identity. Whether we agree or not with the proposition is a different matter than judging it Judeophobic simply because we disagree. A couple of years ago I heard a Jewish academic who was also a holocaust survivor declare a similar opinion. No one stood up and denounced him. Gilad Atzmon suggests that Jew and Zionist is not a binary opposition (§ 20) and says that the only effective Jewish alternative to Zionism is assimilation. He correctly states that the late 19th century Zionist movement was there to stop assimilation. As an example of opposition to assimilation, he quotes Max Nordau, the Jewish philosopher who became a Zionist and was utterly racist. This same concern against assimilation is certainly evident in Herzl’s ‘The Jewish State’ (page 3) and in many other pronouncements by Jewish Zionists. So again this question will be contested and open to disagreement and debate but it is not a phobic one according to my definition. There is more in a similar vein. He ends by writing;

“It is necessary to fight Zionism as a human being, as an ‘English Jew’ rather than a Jew who lives in England…(§ 25)…Jews are at their very best when they leave the ghetto physically and mentally…when they join the human family without prejudice.” (§ 26)

Whether one agrees or not with Gilad Atzmon’s ideas, it is clear from this document (and the seven others I have read) and listening to him talk in Exeter, that in these instances he has not displayed any Judeophobia. Yes he is severely critical of Judaism, Israel and Zionism. He is also critical of the primary or what he sees as the confused motives of some of the Jewish left support for Palestinians, but both are articulated in a reasoned and sharp manner and not at all in a phobic or dismissive one. In the articles I have read, he operates essentially from a humanist position, which may not be popular in some circles, but in this he is not alone. To quote Akiva Orr.

“Humanism is a different value system. It puts the interests of humanity as a whole (however, one defines them) before any interest of any human group, and even one’s own personal interests. Such a value system is known as anthropocentric…. Anthropocentrism and ethnocentrism exclude each other. A person cannot uphold two different value systems. When a decision has to be taken, and the value systems guiding the choice are in conflict, one value system must prevail.” (Akiva Orr 'Israel, Politics and Identity’, page 129).

In this article ‘Not in my Name’ (and others) Gilad Atzmon is arguing against what I think he perceives as a form of Jewish ethnocentricism and he is doing so from a humanist or anthropocentric position. Anyone who does so will come into conflict with those wishing to defend and retain an ethnocentric identity. If humans are first and foremost humans and only secondarily other forms of identity, then they need to abandon much of their inherited tradition and begin to create another. Since all ‘traditions’ have been previously created, or in most cases ’manufactured’ by an elite, this is not an impossible task. However, it does often take a group of courageous innovators to lead the way in this field as in others. And as Claude Levi-Strauss noted;

“..the concept of an all inclusive humanity, which makes no distinction between races or cultures appeared very late in the history of mankind and…has not escaped periods of regression and ambiguity.“ (Levi-Strauss. ‘Structural Anthropology‘).

In the articles and counter-polemics examined above, as I see it, these two value systems are in conflict. That ethnocentric identity can arouse the deepest passions is evident, from history as well as contemporary life. For some people their ‘given’ and ‘inherited’ ethnic or religious identity has been internalised so deeply that they cannot let go of the idea (or ideal) of it, even when the reality should persuade them to do so. Although religious forms of universalism challenged religious particularism two millennia ago, universalism and humanism have still not fully permeated the pores of religious or secular life. But with the advent of philosophy and science, particularly anthropological studies;

“Customs that have ruled from time immemorial are suddenly open to comparison and judgement. For the first time, it is possible to distinguish the essential from the contingent, the natural from convention. Instead of experiencing it as truth, tradition becomes the subject of reflection. In the process of questioning the ways of the ancestors, an extraordinary concept emerges or allows itself to be seen, namely the idea of a single humanity.” (Alain Finkielkraut. ‘In the name of Humanity’ pub Columbia University Press, page 7).

Such historic questioning and the idea of a single humanity based upon non-exploited labour, was given an additional emphasis with the researches of Marx. However, the savage distortions perpetrated by the Bolshevik and Stalinist misinterpretations of his work have undoubtedly set back this forward-looking project. Since that demise there has been a retreat into nationalism, ethnicity and particularistic forms of religion. In the alienated atomised world of modernity, the search for meaning, solidarity and identity for the many anonymous and dispensable human cogs in capital’s industrial and commercially globalised world, has frequently gone into nostalgic idealism. This is despite the examples of the tragic directions this has led to during the 20th century and continues to do so in the 21st.

"Antisemitism (not merely the hatred of Jews), imperialism (not merely conquest), totalitarianism (not merely dictatorship) – one after the other, one more brutal than the other, have demonstrated that human dignity needs a new guarantee which can be found only in a new political principle, in a new law on earth, whose validity this time must comprehend the whole of humanity, while its power must remain strictly limited…We can no longer afford to take that which is good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time will bury in oblivion." (Hannah Arendt 'The origins of Totalitarianism' Preface to the 1st edition. Emphasis added).

For some people ethnicity and/or tradition have become the secular versions of the religious sense of communal belonging. In an alienated world, the need to feel ethnically proud and different (and thus by degrees become ethnocentric) is often an ‘idea’ to be protected, sanitised and idealised. Those ‘born again’ into feeling that way may get angry with any members ‘within’ the ethnicity who are seen to besmirch this idealised view and livid with those ‘outside’ who criticise it. Intellectual criticism of such deeply felt ethnicity may not always be met calmly or rationally. If dying for and killing for the survival of one’s ethnic identity and not just one’s life as a human being is a choice some people make, (and some undoubtedly do) then we are in difficult times. And as Edward Said noted;

“…the politics of identity and partition…..have brought more trouble than they are worth, nowhere more than when they are associated with precisely those things, such as humanities, traditions, art, values, that identity allegedly defends and safeguards, constituting in the process territories and selves that seem to require killing rather than living.” (Edward Said ‘Humanism and Democratic Criticism’, page 77).

His is no lone voice. There is also increasing recognition that particularist struggles and identity politics are no match for the globalised economic neo-liberal elite and their resource hungry agenda, part of which is the military control (with Israel as a prime forward base) of the Middle East/Near Orient;

"In this new globalized context the victories of identity-politics have amounted to rearranging the furniture while the house burned down" (Naomi Klein. ‘No Logo’ page 123).

Yet, unfortunately, we are actually in what Levi-Strauss identifies as a period of regression and ambiguity regarding humanism. For ethnicity and religiosity also now reassert themselves in the form of fundamentalisms within numerous national, religious and even regional identities. Nevertheless, ethnocentrism and religion, along with nationalism represents a past which continues to tragically haunt the present and the struggle for a consistent humanism/anthropomorphism represents the future. A recognition of this suggests another possible line of inquiry as to why so much heat has been generated. Not it seems by the extreme Zionist atrocities in occupied Palestine Gaza and Lebanon, but by the appearance in Exeter of one talented Jazz musician, who happens to be from a Jewish background and expresses a humanist opinion, not only in support of Palestinians but also (as it should do) one probingly critical of the religion, culture and state he was born into. Before returning to that line of enquiry it is worth considering another article which has been condemned by the same sources.

d) Jewish Power

This is the title of an article written in 2004 by Paul Eisen which has caused much anger and vilification. This author is also said to be Judeophobic. He writes;

“The crimes against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons with Jewish religious symbols all over them, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organised Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do. The past is just too terrible. All of us know of the hatred and violence to which accusations against Jews have led in the past.” (§ 5).

This statement is neither phobic nor insensitive. It is a statement of fact. The author goes on (§ 6) to state that in his view Zionism is at the heart of Jewish life with many religious Jews amongst the most virulent of Zionists. He argues (§ 8) that Jewishness is inextricably bound to Judaism via a shared history both real and imagined (§ 9). Not only that, he adds, but they also feel a shared destiny which confers a ’specialness’. For the religious Jew it is the ‘special covenant’ with God, for the secular Jew it is a ‘special history’ (§ 11). He notes (§ 13 and § 14) that the special suffering of Jews unites them and that Zionism confirms this. This feeling special would not be a problem, he argues, but for an additional element.

“This is the problem with Zionism. It expresses Jewish identity but also empowers it. It tells Jews (and many others) that Jews can do what Jews have always dreamed of doing. It takes the perfectly acceptable religious feelings of Jews, or if you prefer, the perfectly harmless delusions of Jews, and tries to turn them into a terrible reality. Jewish notions of specialness, chosenness, and even supremacism, are fine for a small, wandering people, but, when empowered with a state, an army and F16’s becomes a concern for us all.” (§ 15).

He too makes the analogy of Zionism with Fascism, saying that this Jewish ideology, in its zealotry and irrationality, resembles more the National Socialism which condemned millions in its nonsensical racial and ethnic supremacy. They (Nazism and Zionism) both sought to maintain racial/ethnic purity of one group and to maintain the rights of that ethnic group over others (§ 18). In a section on American Jews, the author questions that Near Orient/Middle East oil alone is sufficient reason to explain North American support for Israel. He suggests the Jewish Lobby comprised of “..billionaires, media magnates, politicians, activists and religious leaders..” , plays a significant part. Noting that in the modern era Jews are never portrayed in anything other than a favourable light, yet discounting conspiracy theories, he writes;

“Nor is it any wonder that Jews in influential positions are inclined to promote what they see as Jewish collective interests. Is it really all that incredible that Jewish advisors around the Presidency bear Israel’s interests at heart when they advise the President on foreign affairs?” (§ 25).

He notes that this is no different than any other group of citizens (§ 26) but what is different is the fact that this concerted and co-ordinated lobby is more often than not denied (§ 28). In another paragraph he makes an allusion to the fake world conspiracy ideas contained within the Protocols of the Elders of Zion writing;

“This conflation of Jewish interests with American interests is nowhere more stark than in present American foreign policy. If ever an image was reminiscent of a Jewish world conspiracy, the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East, this must be it.” (§ 29)

That this is perhaps an insensitive formulation is clear. Whether this reference is phobic or not is a separate question. The point being made is deliberately and provocatively put but it is actually making the same point as that made two years later by the authors of the Harvard University research paper ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy‘ (March 2006). This latter paper concluded that; “…the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby‘” (page 1).

He notes that the Holocaust Memorial in Washington was erected to commemorate a tragedy not committed on Americans, by people who were not Americans and in a place very far from America. He asks, (§ 30) how is it possible that such a memorial representing only 2 per cent of the American population can be built in the heart of America? Since there is no comparable memorial on Black American slavery, indigenous Indian massacres or the attack on Pearl Harbour, the implication is that there must be those of Jewish ethnicity who have enormous influence. Moving on to the depiction of Jewish Shoah/Holocaust suffering he contrasts how this is treated in comparison to the millions of non-Jews who died. He notes that the Shoah/Holocaust is treated as being beyond examination and scrutiny. He notes that those who question the Holocaust narrative may comprise of crazy Jew-haters or scholars seeking the truth, but that for him this is not the real point.

“…the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the slave trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why?” (§ 38).

He suggests it is because Jewish suffering underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere. He then (§’s 39/40/41) mentions Israel Shamir and his theories of Jewishness being about an ideology of chosenness, exclusivity and supremacism, rather than race or tribal ethnicity. He states that Israel Shamir has never called for harm to be done to Jews or anyone else and then writes;

“One doesn’t need to be in complete agreement with Shamir to understand what he is talking about.” (§ 43).

Quoting Primo Levi on the dangers of lumping all the people of a nation together as if they all thought and acted the same, yet still observing that some peoples have general characteristics, he asks if this is an appropriate hypothesis for Jews. This characteristic or ‘spirit’ is what he says Shamir is concerned about identifying. He quotes Rabbi Mark Solomon (§ 47) on the view that the concept of something special being passed down a certain genetic line which the Rabbi describes as ’metaphysical racism’. He observes that even secular Jews who are opposed to all religions still call themselves Jews and still turn up to solidarity rallies only with other Jews. He asks; ’What is their ideology? Whilst not providing an answer he writes;

“Whatever the motive, this self-identity runs very deep indeed. Amongst these Jews, no matter how left or progressive they may be, one may criticise Israel to the nth degree, poke fun at the Jewish establishment and even shamefully denigrate Judaism as a religion, but depart one iota from the approved text on anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering, and you are in deep trouble.” (§ 49).

He notes that the secular tradition of Jewishness has been at the forefront of Zionism’s assault on the Palestinians and lists a number of them (§ 51). He says many of them have been life-long activists for many causes but they call for a Palestinian state on only 22 per cent of the Palestinian homeland, knowing this would be weak, dominated by the Israeli economy and under the guns of the Israeli military. In speeches they call;

“Down with the occupation, ‘down with the occupation‘, ‘down with the occupation’, but not a word of the inherent injustice of a state for Jews only; perhaps a mention of ill-gotten gains of 1948, but nothing of the right of return of the refugee..” (§ 53).

This is an observation I have made myself over a number of years. In fact, a booklet recently passed to me called ‘Counter-Rhetoric' emanates from this Jewish Left strand. Like the official Israeli perspective it still makes no mention of colonisation or the injustice of a Jews Only state and among other things clearly wishes to fob the Palestinians off with 22% of their original homeland (Counter-Rhetoric page 5.) Paul Eisen comments that using the phrase ’the Jews’ is terrifying because of its past association with discrimination and violence, and that people in solidarity movements are afraid to criticise Jews because of the blurred outlines and confusingly changing forms of Jewishness. He then argues that;

“If the American military lays waste a third world country, it is done by order of the government (a small group) with the full support of the ruling elites (another small group), the tacit support of a substantial segment of the population (a larger group), the silent denial of probably the majority of the population (a very large group) and the opposition of a tiny minority (a small group). Is it all that different with Jews?” (§ 58).

He states that although the Jews are not a legally constituted body like the United States, and are not all on one area of land, they nonetheless have informal leaders, organisations and an extensive network of linked Jewish bodies which do have policies and are full square behind Zionism and its assault on the Palestinians. So why do we not hold these Jewish people responsible for what is happening to Palestinians? The answer, he says, is because we are frightened that it may open the flood-gates to a burst of Jew hatred. He asks;

“Does speaking the truth about Jewish identity, power and history lead to Jews being led to concentration camps and ovens? Of course it doesn’t! It is hatred, fear and the suppression of free thought and speech which leads to these things – whether the hatred, fear and suppression is directed against Jews or by Jews.” (§ 64).

My understanding of the rise of Nazism in Germany concurs with this assertion. Jews were not subjected to a holocaust until the Nazis had gained absolute power, eliminated their opponents and instituted a totalitarian military/police state. He finishes by noting that by engaging with these questions he will be called an anti-Semite. He says; “But so what?” The fact that Jews in Israel/Palestine are desecrating churches and mosques and brutally oppressing entire Christian and Muslim populations makes it hard to get excited about graffiti daubed on a synagogue somewhere. And;

“Edward Said spent a lifetime picking his way through the Israel/Zionism/Judaism minefield and never once criticised the Jews, and he was called an anti-Semite his whole life, right up to and even after his death.” (§ 65).

Whilst there may be many things to dispute in this paper and others requiring clarification or further substantiation, it is quite clear that this is not a phobic attack upon Jews by a fellow Jew or ex Jew. To me, the main arguments are rational and limited to the focus of the discussion. I can see that some of the allusions and arguments he makes may be hurtful to some Jews, particularly those on the left and particularly those who fervently wish to maintain a Jewish ethnicity. However, making people uncomfortable by pointing out (correctly or even incorrectly) the contradictions they hold on to is not the same as being phobic. In the papers examined so far there have been no Xenophobic extensions from individual cases generalised to all, there have been no Chimeric inventions. As with most criticisms no one is forced to wear a cap which doesn’t actually fit him or her. If any of those criticisms do not apply to the reader they needn’t be taken personally and perceived as hurtful. Whilst I do think we should be concerned about slogans daubed on synagogue walls I can, for example, see the point he is making concerning the hypocrisy involved in many Jews complaining about this whilst supporting or staying quiet over house demolitions, checkpoints, incursions and assassinations, etc., in Palestine. Whilst I personally would not make a comparison between the Jewish neo-cons support for Israel and the fictitious world conspiracy, this does not alter the fact that there are indeed machinations, secret meetings, behind the scenes intrigues, collusions at all levels of government in the so-called open societies of the west and, by their own admission, Zionists have been involved in very many of these.[i]

5. POSSIBLE MOTIVATIONS

As is self-evident, a lot of the energy and emotion around this polemic against Gilad Atzmon and ‘others’, anti-Semitism’ is emanating from within a Jewish left/socialist strand. In many ways the concept of a Jewish left or Socialism is a contradiction, for socialism, at least in the anti-capitalist tradition of Marx, supersedes all other forms of identity. Socialism in this and the original communard tradition, before the massive distortion of Bolshevism/Stalinism, was conceived as overcoming or transcending the historical barriers between humanity erected upon religion, gender, nationality, race, ethnicity or class.[13] This form of socialism I now call revolutionary humanism in order to not only be clear about its main ethical paradigm (the welfare of all humanity and its eco-systems), but also to signpost its commitment to a revolutionary transformation of the capital-dominated socio-economic system which perpetuates and utilises these divisions. In this tradition of Marx, socialism, distorted as it became in the Soviet Union, at least initially (and for some time) declared as its mission the equality of all citizens. For a long time they refused to identity each other by anything other than comrade. Trotsky for example never once publicly referred to himself as a Jewish Bolshevik or Jewish Commissar, or even as a Bolshevik or communist Jew. Only the Nazis drew attention to his parents’ and childhood religio-ethnic background. The same was true of very many other revolutionaries of Jewish parentage. Some in the lower ranks (and the Bund) may have continued to see themselves as Jews first and communist/socialists second but those of the most committed and occasionally far-sighted kept firmly to the vision of collective humanity and declined to use any identifier which trumped, detracted or obscured this.

The use of the term Jewish, placed before anything which resembles the socialist humanism of the kind envisaged by Marx is therefore not only an ethnocentric anachronism, but as noted earlier, it is a contradiction. Whatever its presumed (and apparently contested) effectiveness as a short-term tactic in anti-Zionism, its strategic use in relationship to socialist humanism is retrograde. For it represents a decision to preserve the ethnic division and separation of Jewishness within collective humanity. It does not seek to abandon and/or transcend those historic and tragic divisions but conserve them and reserve for them a special place within humanity. For;

“Ethnocentrism, the mirror image of xenophobia, ascribes a special status to your group. It is expressed in the argument that a certain group is the carrier of special, unique values, to the exclusion of all others. It is not just the recognition of difference, but a claim of uniqueness and superiority, based on extraordinary qualities residing in the group.” (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. ‘Original Sins’. page 10).

It is clear from this that ethnocentrism can come pretty close if not provide an exact match for a form of racism. In ascribing a special status and superiority to your group it implicitly invites others to put their historic ethnic traditions before the concept of universal humanity. Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Afro-Caribbeans, etc. etc., would be perfectly entitled to do exactly the same and claim their uniqueness and superiority. On this basis, the social-evolutionary aim of one humanity who happen to live in different locations, enjoy different climates, wear different clothes and eat different foods, and where each is seen as different but not superior or inferior, would be unattainable. For to preserve these special distinctions (and pass them on) there would have to be a rationale (and an alleged advantage) for belonging to one rather than another or in preference to belonging to none! It matters little how innocuous that rationalisation and real (or imagined) advantage might sound, its very existence, its raison d’être, would be divisive because its purpose would be to justify difference and separation.

In my whole 50 years of solidarity activism I have not come across or read of any other revolutionary socialists or humanist-based activists who have seriously wished to put their ethnicity or nationality before their political identity of socialist or communist. There is also another problem for those who wish to consider themselves Jews first and socialists second. It is a problem which few, if any other, ethnicities would have.

The fact of a long history of culturally/religiously inspired Judeophobia together with the atrocities of Israel and the complicity by silence or support of many Jewish people throughout the Diaspora, means there is an ever-present possibility of a resurgence of militant Judeophobia, particularly in countries of the Middle East. This means that those who designate themselves as Jewish Socialists, as with many other people of Jewish ethnicity who wish to preserve it, must have a greater or lesser existential fear of being caught up in any such resurgence. Sadly, being blamed by reason of their religion or of their ethnicity (guilt by association) for Israel’s Zionist inhumanity must be a constant (and again sadly, not an entirely irrational) fear. This at a conscious or sub-conscious level is likely to make some of them hypersensitive and highly emotionally responsive to even an indirect hint of criticism aimed at Judaism or Jewish ethnicity which is not directly and obviously linked to the Zionist regime in Israel. Some, (as with most of us – only more so -over some particularly sensitive issue or other) may even imagine it when it really isn’t there. It would take a personality not so threatened or emotional to calmly distinguish between a reasoned criticism and a prejudiced phobia.[14] If this is true (and it is) of real Judeophobes who consistently fail to distinguish between what is real and what is feared, it is just possible (since they too are human beings) that those possibly on the receiving end may also have difficulty in distinguishing between what is real and what is feared. Seeing Judeophobia almost everywhere, and/or fearing it in rational criticism could be itself a form of phobia, a type of Xenophobia, to be exact. A greater or lesser part of such Jewish socialists lives and concerns may well tend to orbit around opposing any manifestation of what they consider Judeophobia or anti-Semitism. On the possible exaggeration of this read, for example Raul Hilburg’s points (author of ‘The Destruction of the Jews in Europe‘) in Logos 6.12 Winter/Spring 2007 on historical revisionism, the term anti-Semitism and its historic demise along with the cultures which spawned it.

The very Judeophobia which provided the impetuous and justification for the Zionist 19th century project and the 20th century state of Israel would be at the same time the most dire existential threat to anti-Zionist Jews among which are many Jewish Socialists or 'lefts'. A number (not all) on both sides, Zionist and anti-Zionist, are likely to be somewhat obsessed by anti-Semitism. What the one side (Israel and ardent Zionists) are content to draw attention to in order to aggressively ‘face off‘ the world, the other (anti-Zionists) would be dismayed and want to see less of in order to peacefully face the world. Both these constituencies will be on the maximum alert for any direct or indirect possibilities of Judeophobia. Zionists and Israel to say, “see, this is why a Jewish state is necessary“, the other side to stamp it out and free themselves of any personal or collective anxiety. The motivating force of these differing orbits around the real or imagined existence of Judeophobia is more likely to be apprehension, horror and fear, however much they might deny it or rationalise their motives as being in the interests of peace for all humanity. For it is in the interests of peace for all humanity to abandon any primary identity other than being human and equal. And in this any Jewish Socialists in the tradition of Marx (not the ‘Marxists’ – that’s another sad story!) should be leading the way forward, not backward. Marx was not being literal about ‘chains’ when he made his famous humanist call; ’Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains‘. Amongst those chains are ideologies of nationality, religion and ethnicity, for they shackle people to a past and present based upon discrimination, mythical chosenness, imagined superiority and a greater or lesser fear of the ‘other‘.

This perspective may seem utopian, but as Akiva Orr correctly stated; ’It is better to struggle for what we really want and not get it, than to struggle for what we don’t want and get it‘. And nothing in this aspect of life can be achieved collectively in practice without first recognising it, articulating it in conceptual terms and by some putting it into practice.

Breaking out of the historically constructed ghettos of Ethnicity, Nationalism, Racism, Tribalism and Religion, of our own or others making, is an important step and freedom to criticise is an important element in that process. The socialist Rosa Luxemburg, murdered by Fascists, made the point well.

“…I have no special corner of my heart reserved for the ghetto: I am at home wherever in the world there are clouds, birds and human tears….” (Rosa Luxemburg. Letter from prison 16/2/17).

The revolutionary humanism of Karl Marx and those who associate with this original viewpoint want to struggle for a world where a person is seen as a brother and sister human being first and any other (pejoratively used) identification way behind in second or third place, if not ditched altogether.[15] This may not be the present understanding of those millions of ordinary people of the world, who have been taught by the ‘powers-that-be’ (political or religious) for divisive reasons to elevate their national, ethnic or religious tradition above any other identifier. However, in any great period of upheaval whether in 17th – 20th century Europe or in modern South America, people in flux throw off those confining straight jackets of taught tradition and co-operate with each other as citizen, comrade, brother or sister. Those really in the revolutionary-humanist tradition of Marx do not wait until such turmoil occurs but anticipate it and embrace it now.

In turning from the possibility of obsessional and understandably emotional reactions to alleged Judeophobia we should not forget another reason for a careful and serious consideration of any such charges. We should not forget Noam Chomsky’s advice and warning with regard to the politics of Palestinian solidarity and the Zionist plus Israeli opposition to this. He notes, regarding Israeli intelligence;

“According to a CIA study, one of its functions is to acquire data for use in silencing anti-Israeli factions in the West, along, with…character assassination and black propaganda. They also attempt to penetrate anti-Zionist elements in order to neutralise the opposition.” (N. Chomsky. ’The Fateful Triangle’. Pluto Press, footnote on page 11).

This is not to accuse or insinuate anything at all regarding the discussion/debate within Exeter and elsewhere, it is merely to note another reason for examining the issues ourselves and with a great deal of caution and care. And it also serves as a reminder to us not to be frustrated at the fact that the issue of Israel, Zionism and the charge of Judeophobia can at times get extremely confusing. On the humanitarian level it is easier to understand a colonial conquest of brutal dimensions and the varying tempo of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, than it is to get one’s head around some of these often esoteric sounding and emotionally charged disputes.

There is now one more aspect to cover in this review of polemics around Judeophobia. It is this. Why is it that some people who are not Jews and have no reason for any hypersensitity to, or existential fear of, Judeophobia, demonstrate the same obsessive compulsion to find Judeophobia even where it may not really exist? Not only this, but to assert its existence and perhaps ignore possible manipulation of texts in order to conjure up the appearances of the phenomena! The answer could be simple. It could also be fear and apprehension. Not an existential fear for their actual lives but an existential fear of losing the appearance of being politically correct leaders. I have met this characteristic on many occasions although it is always strenuously denied. Yet it is a logical consequence of being part of the vanguard. If you imagine yourself as part of the ‘vanguard’ of enlightened future leaders of the world’s oppressed (or even the local oppressed) in the struggle against oppression, then you cannot afford not be at the forefront and cutting edge of political correctness. This is necessary so that all your future followers among the oppressed will recognise not only your ability, but the desirability of choosing you as their leaders. Your own self-image also demands it. And of course a large section of the oppressed are the Jews. Not particularly the Jewish Capitalists and Financiers, but the Jewish masses, who are distributed among the middle and working classes. So if the Jewish masses are oppressed by the means of Judeophobia then you as a part of the ‘vanguard’ must be close to the forefront if not at it on this question. So far, so good. Or perhaps not so good when you think of the colossal arrogance in some of the ‘vanguard’ posturing. However, the question of how to identify and oppose Judeophobia remains. There are two possibilities here. First, you can draw up your own definition of Judeophobia/anti-Semitism, distinguish it from legitimate criticism and then proceed to evaluate those instances of criticism which seem to have a phobic element to them against the criteria within your definition. Second, if that seems too daunting a task or you haven’t the time, then borrow someone else’s opinion of what constitutes Judeophobia and use that and rely upon them to alert you to transgressions. What better sources for this alternative ‘borrowed’ opinion than that of Jewish anti-Zionists or Jewish Socialists? Well, noble and sensible as this gesture seems, there are two serious problems with it. One is that those most at risk of Judeophobia even if they are not obsessive about it are more likely to exaggerate its presence or mistake its identity. This is what I think happened in Exeter not too long ago (2005/2006) with regard to Norman Finkelstein. Because of his book on the ‘Holocaust Industry’ some on the left initially at least partly followed the Zionist line accusing him of ‘distortion’ and declaring him anti-Semitic, only later to apparently change their minds.

This result points us to a second problem with this kind of process. As noted elsewhere, if you borrow and don’t truly ’own’ the opinion by research yourself, it is likely to have to be suddenly abandoned if it is later proved inaccurate or wrong.[16] Then, of course, your credentials for the ‘vanguard’ position begin to be doubly questioned. Your image of leadership, at least in the eyes of others, starts to evaporate. You can of course then bluster, make excuses, try some nifty intellectual footwork to dodge the problem, deny that it is or was wrong or just change the subject and move onto other things. Just like any other politician. But then again in the eyes of those who have seen this error and/or manoeuvring, the game is up. Caught out in this way, the only remedy is honest admission and apology. Sadly few would-be ‘vanguard’ leaders are capable of such honesty and courage.

6. CONCLUSION

As I have stated elsewhere, there is a constant danger of the introduction of what Orwell in 1984 called ‘thought crime’. That is to say some ‘outside’ ‘authority’ declares that some opinions, thoughts and avenues of study are tantamount to crimes. If the external authority is strong enough or sufficiently influential, this will result in the operation of an internal censor within individuals and collectives. Fear of punishment, embarrassment or even guilt may make a person stifle him or herself and perhaps try to restrain others. However, this will not prevent people from thinking these things and may even strengthen their views. The fear of ’thought crime’ is itself a phobic fear for it is predicated on a view that thinking or saying something which may offend someone will automatically result in doing something offensive to them. Whilst this may occur with a few people it is a phobic over reaction itself to extend this possibility to everyone. The most recent public outing of this type of phobia was in the response of many Muslims to the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. There is no evidence that such cartoons would encourage the general non-Muslim population to attack Muslims or mosques. A few racists might, but they might do so anyway for any other reason they choose to latch onto. The racist phobias of a few should not allow the freedom of expression and criticism for the many to be curtailed. Whilst cartoons can be disrespectful, and even hurtful, as with words that is not necessarily the same as being phobic. But in any case, it is impossible to stop people thinking things. It is only possible to stop them saying things in places where they may be accountable. I personally do not support censorship, nor recommend that we should drive opinions we don’t agree with underground. Better in the open to counter them and combat them. It is also worth remembering that all advances in science, literature, art, history, etc., have been at the expense of offending some vested interest or other, no matter how humane the intention, it is simply par for the course. Science and humanist-based discourse has always offended religious minded people, the evolution of secular anthropocentrism has always been opposed by advocates of secular ethnicity.

I have not read all the material produced by Gilad Atzmon or those he has been linked with, but I shall attempt to read more over the summer. However, those I have read (seven articles in all) have not – according to the definitions outlined earlier – fallen into the categories of Judeophobic, Fascist-minded or Shoah/Holocaust denial. I could produce more extracts, but already this paper is too long. As always, I caution against taking anybody’s word for important matters – including mine! Those concerned should read as much of the actual material (and relevant background material) as they need to satisfy themselves. But in expressing my views I should add, that in the few polemics against him that I have read so far, I have been struck by the almost complete lack of rigour, clarity, humility or humanity within them and the complete lack of dignity or worthy intent they grant those with opposing views. Assertions, taking words out of context and reading more into them than is there, may now I guess be also directed against me. For such is the politico/psychological investment and emotional momentum involved I am sure to be accused of defending a Judeophobe, if not accused of becoming one myself. However, such accusations – if they appear – will no doubt reveal clear sectarian characteristics for these emerge whenever solidarity opinions which differ are not viewed as different and subject to reasoned debate, but subject to outright condemnation as malign and deliberately dangerous. Again, to my mind such reactions can only be explained by the highly emotional reaction some people have to critical comments which they ‘fear’ may contribute to the rise of Judeophobia or injure their own individual or collective self-image. It is clear to my mind that the biggest contributors to the past and occasionally present Judeophobia have been militant ‘literal’ Christians and those who ‘believed‘ and echoed their views.[17] And any future rise or resurgence of this phenomenon will be actually promoted by the actions of the Zionists and the leaders and many supporters of the state of Israel. It is against these that everyone who supports the struggle of the Palestinians should direct the bulk of their clear and reasoned opposition.

Finally! Faced with an opponent as strong and well equipped as Israel and Zionism, any opposition and solidarity movement should be built upon the broadest possible basis. In such a broad movement, there will be a wide range of opinions. Providing they do not contradict the principles of the solidarity movement such varying views are not only unavoidable but an important resource of analysis, motivation and possible directions for action. Accordingly we individually and collectively welcome the support of those orthodox Jews, many of whom may well consider that the sins of the Jews brought the holocaust upon themselves and whose traditional religious ideas are racist, sexist and homophobic. We also work alongside liberal anti-Zionist Jews, many of whom wish to retain and maintain Israel on the back of the Nakba and the land stolen up to 1967. We embrace Christian anti-Zionists, whose New Testament scriptures are replete with Judeophobic accusations. In addition we share platforms and encourage constructive dialogue with Hamas, although many of them think the Protocols are genuine and whose views on women and non-believers are not as charitable as many of us would like. As can be expected in a broad-based movement we have heard no lengthy polemics against collaborating with this varied tapestry of pro-Palestinian supporters. And yet we are warned not to have anything to do with one Gilad Atzmon who unequivocally opposes Zionism, supports the right of return and apparently all other PSC principles. What an amazing set of contradictions are at play in this scenario of who we can associate with without adverse comment and who we should not! Not to mention this contrast revealing a position regrettably located on the slippery slope of hypocrisy.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2008)

[11] There is an implicit questioning of the motives of some (not all) Jewish anti-Zionists in point b). For it introduces the possibility that a desire to defend an honourable form of Jewishness (an ethnocentric protectionist motive) may actually be greater than the desire to see complete justice for the Palestinians (an anthropomorphic or humanist motive).

[12] For example, a phrase such as ‘Christians against anti-Semitism’ would have profound implications even if they were not realised by whoever might adopt such an identifier. The Christian Gospels, particularly John, Acts, Romans, 1. Corinthians and Galations, contain all the seeds of the subsequent socio-religious Judeophobia lasting from the Roman Empire through the Middle-ages to the 20th century. A Christian against Judeophobia/anti-Semitism – to be serious and consistent – would have to renounce and negate substantial parts of their scriptures and their religious history, along with consequent questioning of much of the rest.

[13] Of course there are many other alternative viewpoints which represent themselves as socialist. No doubt in certain circumstances the ex Labour Party Prime Minister, Tony Blair (along with many other Labour Party members, particularly those in the ‘Friends of Israel’ group) has described himself as one. Also there is still in existence an organisation called the ‘Socialist International’ to which belong the Zionist Labour Party of Israel, whose one time leader, Shimon Peres, is on record as defending the ‘historic rights’ (Biblical) of Jews to the land of Israel. So simply declaring oneself a ‘socialist’ does not guarantee you will be fully on the side of the Palestinians. Nor does being a Trade Unionist as Gershon Shafir makes clear in his book ‘Land, Labor and the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict‘. It may mean that such 'trade unionists', ‘socialists’ and ‘peace’ campaigners wish to preserve the Jewish nature of Israel but within the bounds established in 1967. In other words, to legalise by treaty or other ‘agreement’ the land and resources stolen from 1948 to 1967.

[14] Most religions have a phobic element to them. The Christian fear of the ‘Jews’ as manifest in the ‘blood libels’ and Protocols are well known as is ‘homophobia‘. Judaism has also numerous phobias concerning ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’, menstrual discharge, masturbation, homosexual relations and some food/clothing taboos .

[15] This perspective is not an attempt to imagine or project some idyllic future utopia, for disagreements, conflicts and tensions can and will still arise. But they can be dealt with humanely between equals, without the need to assert superiority. As is already the case now in many areas of life.

[16] On the whole question of ‘borrowed’ thinking see Erich Fromm on the dangers of ‘pseudo-thinking’ in ‘Fear of Freedom’ (chapter 5).

[17] Despite my sympathy for the humanist aspirations buried deep within the genocidal and mystical scriptures of most religions, I often wonder why socialists passionately interested in combating Judeophobia don’t campaign against the dissemination of the Judeophobic sections of the Christian gospels noted earlier. These are still utilised not only for church and chapel goers but also in thousands of Primary Schools in England, Wales, parts of North America, and possibly elsewhere.