Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon

Letter to Gilad Atzmon from Paul Jay, The Real News Network

Dear Gilad,

Gilad, you
asked for a chance to respond to Max Blumenthal’s accusation that your views
are anti-Semitic. I promised to read some of your work and then reply. I’ve now
read enough to give an answer.

First let me
make a few things clear about my point of view.

I think any
state based on religion or ethnicity is racist and inherently anti-democratic.
Israel fits that bill, as do others.

I think the
occupation of the West bank and siege of Gaza is illegal. In the brutal wars
against the Palestinian people, Israel has committed countless war crimes.

If this was
1948, I would be opposed to the establishment of the State of Israel. A
democratic, secular, inclusive state where everyone who was living on the
territory of Palestine could become a citizen is what should have been created.

That is what
should happen now. If Palestinians vote for a two-state solution that is their
right, but it’s also their right to demand one-person one vote and thus
transform the current Israeli state into a truly democratic one.

Now, let’s turn
to your thesis.

I do not think
that Zionism grows out of “Jewish ideology”. In fact, I reject the concept that
there is something one can call a generic Jew or a Jewish ideology.

In your book
The Wandering Who, you define Jewish ideology as someone who politically
identifies as a Jew, “Jewishness is an ethno-centric ideology driven by
exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination
toward segregation”.

In Israel,
where national character and Jewish identity merge given the ethnic/religious
basis of the state, this argument may have some merit, but it has nothing to do
with the national and class ideology of thousands of Jews around the world who
have little to no affinity with Israel and do not begin their political
equation with “what’s good for the Jews”.

I’m not
suggesting there are no such Jews, probably a majority at least when it comes
to support for Israel. As odious as this is, this type of chauvinism is nothing
unique, whether it’s Aryan, Han, Japanese, Russian, Saudi or American. Many
nationalist cultures consider themselves to be “chosen” and “exceptional”.

Polling shows
younger generations of American Jews are increasingly more distanced from
feelings of affinity with Israel. Of course, they may adopt the religion or
ideology of Americanism in its place (an ideology, in spite of its crimes, you
seem to have no problem with as it’s not Jewish). 

The point is
that the internalization of racism is not inherent in identifying ones cultural
and ethnic roots as being Jewish, and to do so, is nothing uniquely Jewish.

Just as it is
pointless talking about a generic Catholic without taking into consideration
country of origin, national psychology, and most importantly class – it’s
meaningless talking about a generic Jew.

There are
Catholics whose politics begin with “what’s good for the Catholics” . . .
mostly to be found in the Vatican, but not exclusively. There are many Muslims
who say the same about Islam.

But millions of
people identify as Catholics and Muslims who do not start their political
equation from identity politics. There is no “Catholic ideology or Muslim
ideology” above national and class interest. The world view of a Sri Lankan
catholic peasant has far more in common with an Indian Hindu peasant than with
a Brazilian catholic finance capitalist. That’s not to say there are no
instances of tribalism that influence sections of the population, but again,
nothing uniquely Jewish about it.

There is no
generic Jew.

A Canadian of
Jewish Ashkenazi East European origin, who has no religious beliefs but
identifies as a cultural Jew, opposes the Israeli occupation, has some
nostalgic feelings about grandparents who spoke Yiddish and made chicken soup
on Fridays, and most importantly understands that the Nazis made no
differentiation between believers and non-believers when they knocked down the
door . . . has far more in common, shares more of a world view with a
progressive Muslim Canadian, than with an Israeli Jew who is dripping with
racist hatred for Palestinians.

Hitler and the
Zionists created a vision of a generic Jew with a metaphysical identity,
transmitted by blood or the product of a Jewish soul. The Zionists concocted
that this “identity” necessarily leads to support for the State of Israel. That’s
why they promoted Hebrew as a modern language and virtually suppressed Yiddish
– to invent an identity out of time and place.

Your thesis is
the same as the Zionists. Your “Jewish ideology” exists only in abstract form
and you also conclude it necessarily leads to support for Zionism. Unless a Jew
renounces being a Jew, as you have, they must believe in “exclusiveness,
exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward
segregation” . . . in one form or the other. Your definition transcends nation
and class, because for you, the Jewish identity trumps all other factors.

You write on
the comments section of TRNN, “My scholarship is not concerned with Judaism
(the religion) nor am I referring to Jews (the people). I am critical of Jewish
Identity politics and Jewish ideology. I elaborate on Jewish-ness and Jewish
culture as opposed to Judaism. Race, genetics or biology have never been part
of my study. If anything, I am critical largely of Jewish secular politics and
culture rather than the Jewish religion.”

Your writing is
so self-contradictory that I’m sure you can find a quote that will deal with
all criticisms, even if your statements are opposed to each other.

You write in
your email to me and elsewhere, “Zionism is a dynamic continuation of
Jewish-ness: it (Zionism) is racist, exclusive, supremacist and self- centered,
yet it is not Judaic. It has very little to do with Judaism. It may be
messianic in a territorial sense, yet it lacks the Judaic divinity. In fact, in
this sense, Zionism opposes Judaism.” (The Wandering Who footnote 46, P’197)

Yet in the same
email you write, “However, it is rather obvious and very embarrassing to admit
that the Judaic God, as portrayed by Moses in Deuteronomy 6:10, is an
immoral and evil God. It is a God who leads his people to plunder, robbery and
theft.”

Further down
you write “In short, it is actually impossible not to see the continuum between
Deuteronomy 6:10 and the crime against the Palestinian people that is
committed by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish people”. 

So Jewish
ideology is not Judaic, but its roots are to be found in a continuum from
Deuteronomy 6:10.

You claim this
is an attack on an ideology, not Jews themselves, but I think it’s mental
gymnastics.  Certainly you admit to hating your own “Jewish ideology”, and when
you assert that all those who ascribe to a Jewish identity necessarily have
this ideology – it amounts to the same thing.

One could say,
as the Catholic Church does, they don’t hate homosexuals, only their behavior,
but it is completely disingenuous. Just as the Church is homophobic, your
position is anti-Jewish.

Anti-Semitic
because even though technically Semites include those from the region, since
the late 19th century the term has been used to mean hatred of Jews. So I think
Max Blumenthal’s charge is justified.

Do I believe
you hate all Jews? No. But your theory leads to that.

I think you are
rejecting a vicious form of racism that permeates Israeli society. For that I
applaud you. It’s not easy to break with the pressure put on Israelis to fit
the mold and give up any independent thinking.

This racism
does express itself amongst some people of Jewish origin in North America and
elsewhere, who as a result of experiencing the WWII genocide, or in a desperate
search for meaning in their lives, or to create business alliances or advance
their careers, have latched on to a fictitious poisonous brew cooked up by
Zionist leaders to win support for the occupation.

But there are
people who identify as Jews around the world, who reject all of this and share
most, if not all, of the positions of the Palestinian solidarity
movement. 

Your “Jewish
ideology” also has nothing to do with the brave Israeli Jews who put their
lives and freedom on the line working in the solidarity movement, or refuse to
join the armed forces, and other forms of resistance. Most of them could leave
but choose to stay and fight. They don’t have to renounce their identity as a
Jew to denounce the racist nature of the state and call for an end to the
occupation.

You have many
critics who are activists and Jews in the Palestinian solidarity movement. You
seem to have special venom for them, denouncing them as just another form of
Zionist ideologues. 

But you have
also been denounced by leading Palestinians. In a statement of which you must
be aware, signed by twenty-three Palestinian activists, it says: 

“Atzmon’s
politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for
vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”.
He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist.
Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical
“Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he
claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with
Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not
disagree more. Indeed, we believe Atzmon’s argument is itself Zionist because
it agrees with the ideology of Zionism and Israel that the only way to be a Jew
is to be a Zionist”. I don’t think these leading Palestinian activists can be
accused of basing their critique of you on their “Jewish ideology”.

I’m going to
post this letter in the comments section under the Blumenthal interview. As far
as you answering Max goes, or responding to this letter, you are free to write
a response and have it posted there. But I will not interview you about these
issues.

I believe your
theories have no historical or factual basis. I share the view that your
theories serve Zionist propaganda and divide the solidarity movement. I concur
that your thesis is anti-Semitic at its core. I don’t think a debate about
these issues is called for or serves any kind of useful intellectual endeavor.
I will not get into a drawn out back and forth with you on this.

While I
appreciate much of your critique of the Israeli state, your theoretical work on
the roots of Zionism is just not a serious analysis.

Your hatred for
all things politically left, especially Jewish and left, is superficial and
banal. I quote your email to me, “Sadly we have to admit that hate-ridden
plunder of other people’s possessions made it into the Jewish political
discourse both on the left and right. The Jewish nationalist would rob
Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish
progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in
the name of world working class revolution. I better stay out of it. “

It’s beyond me how
you can’t see that the Israeli state is a product and significant piece of the
system of international capital, something you seem anxious to defend from
“Progressive Jewish robbers”. Here you reveal your ideological roots as a
defender of the “ruling class”.

Your
grandfather would have been proud; you describe him in your book as a “. . .
veteran Zionist terrorist. A former prominent commander in the right-wing Irgun
terror organization”. You write, “More than anything, though, my grandfather
hated Jewish leftists”.

When you equate
the militarist Zionist state’s occupation of Palestinian lands with those who
want a more equitable society, and call them all plunderers who share this
“Jewish ideology” – then you also hate Jewish leftists “more than anything”.
You hate them more than Zionism and building a united front against it.

Paul Jay

Senior Editor

The Real News
Network