JUly 2004
‘NOT IN MY NAME’
– ..................An
analysis of Jewish righteousness.........................
ByGilad Atzmon,
13 June 2004
"There are no English, French, German or
American Jews, but only Jews living
in England, France, Germany or America.’"
Chaim Weizman August 1897, at the First Zionist Congress
I understand Zionists, I think that they are the biggest
threat to world peace, I argue that they are 
war criminals, I
fight them and I try to bring them down. I write about
them, I compose music against them but I understand their
logic. I understand their tricks, I know exactly where
they are aiming and I do my best to stop them.
By contrast, I really do not understand those who fight
Zionism in the name of their secular Jewish identity. I
have never understood them. I have never really
understood what secularism means for the Jewish people.
Do they refer to a hidden core of Jewish secular ethic
philosophy? I have always failed to understand those
secular Jews who declare ‘not in my name’,
those who claim to be ‘atheists’ and
‘enlightened humanists’ but at the same time
talk in the name of a strange tribal brotherhood. There
are many of them: Jews for peace, Jews for Palestine,
Jews against oppression, Jews for human rights, Marxist
Jews, Jews for this and Jews for that. More than often
they approach me and ask for my support. Obviously, I
share most if not all of their humanistic views but I
always have to turn them down. I cannot understand why
they choose to act under a strange clannish umbrella. If
peace is that important, why turn it into a marginal
business? If human rights are a universal aim why not
fight for them among the rest of the humankind.
Facing my criticism they produce the same two arguments:
1. They say that being
Jewish makes their views sound stronger.
2. And they say that in
light of the crimes committed by Zionism in the name of
the Jewish people it makes sense to prove to the world
that, in fact, there are more than a few ‘good
Jews’ around.
The first argument is weak and
counter-effective to its very cause.
In fact, to offer such an argument is to admit to a
certain degree of intellectual dishonesty. 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 on its validity. Consequently,
being a Jew doesn’t cover any argumentative flaws.
If Zionism is categorically wrong, then the racial or
ethnic belonging of its critics is irrelevant.
The second argument is, at first
sight, more convincing. Jewish
leftists occasionally claim that Zionism stains world
Jewry with its continuous criminal activity. The logic
behind such a statement is fairly straightforward. On the
one hand, Zionism presents itself as the official voice
of the Jewish people. On the other hand, Zionism is daily
engaged with serious war crimes and atrocities. The
synthesis of the two leads to the conclusion that world
Jewry is criminally liable for the Zionist crimes.
Theoretically speaking, those Jews who refuse to accept
responsibility are more than entitled to stand up against
Zionism. They usually apply the ‘not in my
name’ strategy; sometimes they define themselves as
‘humanist Jews’ or even ‘Jews for
peace’. Superficially their actions appear noble; in
fact, it is with these actions that the real problems
start. By saying not in ‘my’ name, they label
the rest of the Jewish people as criminally liable for
Zionist crime. I will try to elucidate this point.
We must ask ourselves whether the fact that Zionism
claims to be the official voice of the Jewish people is
enough to turn world Jewry into bunch of war criminals.
The fact that X claims to be the official voice of Y is
far from being enough to turn X into this voice.
Accordingly, the fact that X is committing crimes is not
enough to make Y criminally liable.
Similarly, the fact that President Bush Junior claimed to
be the voice of Western democracy didn’t turn him
into it. Consequently, Western European citizens are not
criminally liable for Bush’s atrocities in Iraq or
Afghanistan. In practice, it was the silence imposed by
the leading European democracies that turned Bush’s
self-nomination into a farce. The Western world bought
its innocence by saving itself from entering into a
debate with the emerging Anglo-Saxon bond of evil.
While Zionism appointed itself from its early days to
talk and to act on behalf of the Jewish people, it is
actually the sporadic rebels who criticise Zionism in the
name of their Jewish secular identity who affirm the
Zionist ‘totalitarian’ agenda. Bizarrely
enough, it is the Jewish Left which turns Zionism into
the official voice of the Jewish people.
This will probably sound peculiar but I will try to
illuminate this point.
Two facts are apparent about the ‘not in my
name’ declaration:
1. It is a personal
pronouncement. By declaring ‘not in my name’,
one affirms the totality of that which one tries to
oppose. In fact, what one says is: ‘Though X
[Zionism, Blair’s government, Bush’s America,
etc.] is entitled to act on my behalf, I myself demand to
be left out.’ This logic is universal; it isn’t
particular to Zionism. When a British citizen shouts
‘not in my name’ he or she essentially approves
the liability of the rest of the British population for
Blair’s crimes in Iraq. ‘Not in my name’
is a naïve demand not to share responsibility. It is a
search for an escape. Considering Zionists’ or
Blair’s crimes this can be understood. Yet, it
appears to be an opportunistic manoeuvre rather than a
carefully considered ideological opposition.
2. Since ‘not in my
name’ is a personal call, it can never generate the
political impetus needed to introduce real political
change. In the case of Zionism it guarantees that
left-wing Jewish rebels will stay forever in the margins.
While Zionism appoints itself to talk in the name of the
Jewish people, its Jewish opposition will only go as far
as to form a few isolated patches of theoretical and
ideological resistance. ‘Enlightened
individualism’ may have something of the heroic
about it but it will always fall short of toppling down a
successful political movement.
So we are left with a depressing picture. It is the
enlightened Jewish leftist who crowns Zionism as the
voice of the Jewish people. We are thus entitled to
consider that all Jewish people – except
Moishe’l, Yitzchak’l and Yanke’l who
apparently have proved themselves to be
‘Jewish peace
activists’, ‘Jewish human rights
enthusiasts’, ‘Marxists Jew’ etc. –
support or at least are liable for Zionist crimes. 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. They
no doubt do not understand that by fighting Zionism in
the name of their Jewish identity they approve Zionism.
They must fail to realise that their form of resistance
contributes to the labelling of the entire Jewish people
as war criminals.
The Birth of Evil
We face here a carefully conceived trap set by early
Zionist ideologists. Zionists would argue that every Jew
is a Zionist unless proved different. Until recently I
myself fell into this trap; I argued that every Jew who
felt unease with Zionist crimes should do their utmost
and be public about it. Only recently did I realise that
I was categorically wrong. To demand that Jews disapprove
of Zionism in the name of their Jewish identity is to
accept the Zionist philosophy. To resist Zionism as a
secular Jew involves an acceptance of basic Zionist
terminology, that is to say, a surrendering to Jewish
racist and nationalist philosophy. To talk as a Jew is to
surrender to Weizman’s Zionist philosophy. According
to Weizman, ‘There are no English Jews’ but
rather ‘Jews who live in England’. In other
words, you are first and foremost a Jew by race and
nation; every other label is secondary.
We must admit that we have never come across a German
dove who defines himself as an ‘Aryan for
peace’; neither do we know of Russians who define
themselves as ‘Slavs for human rights’. We do
not know too many ‘Celtic Marxists’ either.
Such combinations sound pretty peculiar, not to say
funny. Somehow political or humanist titles seem
misplaced when they precede or follow racial labels.
Accordingly, defining oneself as a ‘Marxist
Jew’ or a ‘Jew for peace’ should sound
peculiar. But somehow it doesn’t. No one raises an
eyebrow when confronting a ‘Jew for human
rights’. Presumably this relates to the fact that,
as far as Jews are concerned, the demarcation between
racial identity and nationalist identity is very
ambiguous. If we want to soften the peculiarity involved
with those Jewish humanist titles, we must leave aside
the racist interpretation and re-examine those titles as
nationalistic labels. At least, linguistically it would
make more sense. We can easily conceive of a German
Marxist or a Serbian peace activist. Accordingly, if we
regard Jewish identity as a national definition then the
label ‘Jew for peace’ or ‘Jew for human
rights’ makes sense. We would refer to the above
dove as a man who holds left-wing views and who happens
to be Jewish by nation. However, it doesn’t take a
genius to realise that by doing so we accept the notion
of Jewish nationalism. In other words, we become devoted
Zionists.
Thus, Jews cannot criticise Zionism
in the name of their ethnic belonging because such an act
is in itself an approval of Zionism. Practically
speaking, Jews can’t really oppose Zionism unless
they adopt an alternative view that questions the Zionist
totality.
Zionist Totality
While nationalism is a celebration of the differences
between peoples, Jewish nationalism goes one step
further. As well as being different from all other
nations, Jews must be different from themselves. Being a
total ideology, Zionism classifies and names any form or
shape of Jewish appearance. Every Jew has a role in the
emerging Jewish nationalist revolution. Essentially,it
would appear that we have two poles:
1. The ultimate Zionist: a Jew by race, a
nationalist, a colonialist, a Biblically inspired being,
living on Palestinian confiscated land, preferably in a
West Bank settlement.
2. The ultimate self-hater: a secular,
cosmopolitan, peace lover, inspired by humanistic views,
in a mixed married, living in the Diaspora.
While the former represents the hard-core pioneer of the
contemporary Zionist agenda – who invades
Palestinian lands and engages in daily atrocities –
it is the latter who makes Zionism into a dynamic
movement.
It is the ‘self-hater’ who serves as an inside
enemy. It is he who will convert (to Zionism) in the next
anti-Semitic wave. It is he who makes Zionism into an
eternal struggle for ‘Jewish salvation’. And,
if this were not enough, it is he, the peace lover, who
proves beyond doubt that deep in their souls Jews are
peace enthusiasts and great humanists.
Looking at those distinct poles we find the contemporary
Jewish people in a severely schizophrenic state. This
malaise is the fuel of the Zionist revolution; it
guarantees a never-ending struggle for self-definition.
Within such a struggle, Zionism, being the voice of the
Jewish people, positions itself beyond the debate itself.
Zionism becomes a form of a meta-dialectic ideology. It
is a medium of activity rather than a set of political
manoeuvres.
Why is this issue a major concern?
I frequently hear complaints that it is the Jewish Left
which dominates the ‘Palestinian solidarity
campaign’. I can confirm that I am approached by
many Jewish seculars who are devoted Palestinian
supporters. A significant number of them would proudly
admit to acting in the name of their Jewishness. A few
days ago I attended a Palestinian solidarity event in
London. It was pretty depressing to find that Hebrew was
the most noticeable language in the theatre. On the
surface, the situation looks encouraging, as if we are
dealing with people of integrity and high human values.
But the truth is slightly less heroic. 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 Jewish
Left which decides what is right and what is wrong. For
instance, political criticism of Zionism is more than
welcome as long as you stick to a very limited
socio-political discussion. The Jewish Left is happy to
denounce Sharon or Peres but any comparison between
Zionism and other manifestations 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.
I will use this opportunity to declare that the only way
to further understand Zionism is to throw light on
contemporary Jewish identity. Zionism and Jewish identity
are not as foreign to each other as Jewish leftists
insist. Zionism is an extreme appearance of Jewish
identity. It is the embodiment of every wrong aspect of
Jewish secular thinking. It is racist, it is nationalist,
and it is Biblically inspired (rather than spiritually
inspired). Being a fundamentalist movement, Zionism is
not categorically different from the Nazism. Only when we
understand Zionism in its nationalist and racist context
will we begin to comprehend the depth of its atrocities.
Only then will we realise how the Nakba (the ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinian people in 1948) took place
(just three years after the end of the Jewish Holocaust).
We will then understand Ben Gurion’s motivations,
Sharon’s popularity and Peres’ commitment to
Sharon’s notion of peace. We will even get a glimpse
into the deteriorated morality of the newly retired
‘good Jew’ Prof’ Benny Morris.
I do not doubt the genuine good will of those who fight
Zionism in the name of their Jewish identity. I do think
that they fail to think it through. In practice,
left-wing Jews act as the Zionist fig leaf against their
will. In modern Zionist terminology they provide Israel
with a mighty intellectual defence wall.
So, what to do?
More than often I am asked to define the differentiation
between Jews and Zionists. More than often I am blamed
for criticising Jews when I am ‘supposed’ to
criticise Zionists. This demarcation line between Jews
and Zionists is very important for lefty Jews. The reason
is simple: they want to maintain their secular Jewish
identity while disassociating themselves from the Zionist
evil.
For years I couldn’t understand what it was in their
Jewish identity that they wanted to maintain. Was it
their racial identity, their national one or just their
love of chicken soup with maza balls?
On the other hand, I can understand religious Jewish
groups who base their criticism of Zionism on Jewish
religious laws and moral guidelines. I am totally in
support of Neturei Karta’s anti-Zionist political
agenda. But when it comes to secular Jews I get lost.
Some of them will argue, while rolling their eyes up,
that it was Hitler rather than Moses who made them Jews.
What they are trying to say is that for them being Jewish
is an ethnic label rather than spiritual statement –
it has something to do with idishe cuisine, with their
love of Jewish humour or even of lighting candles once a
year.
Only recently did I realise where the real problem lies.
The ‘not in my name Jews’ are convinced
that Jews/Zionists is a binary opposition. They try to
persuade us that there is a sort of contradiction between
these terms. Within the infertile, politically correct
discourse we are all engaged with, no one dares to
question this claim. But the truth must be said: they are
wrong. Jews and Zionists do not constitute a binary
opposition. If anything they are complimentary
categories. The one and only effective Jewish alternative
to Zionism is the option of assimilation. Those who are
familiar with the history of the Zionist movement know
that it is the assimilationists who were always regarded
by Zionists as the biggest possible threat.
In the late nineteenth century the Zionist movement
started as a reaction to the emancipation of the
European Jewry. Zionism was there
to stop the Jews from being ‘lost’ in
assimilation. Let us see what Max Nordau had to say about
the subject while addressing the First Zionist Congress
in 1897:
"The word ‘Ghetto’ is today associated
with feelings of shame and humiliation. But the Ghetto,
whatever may have been the intentions of the people who
have created it, was for the Jew of the past not a
prison, but a refuge ... In the Ghetto, the Jew had his
own world; it was to him the sure refuge which had for
him the spiritual and moral value of a parental home ...
Their external situation was insecure, often seriously
endangered. But internally they achieved a complete
development of their specific qualities … That was
the psychology of the Ghetto Jew.
"Now came mancipation. The law assured the Jews that
they were full citizens of their country … They had
now another home; they no longer needed a Ghetto; they
had now other connections and were no longer forced to
exist only with their co-religionists … Now they
sought after the closest association and assimilation in
place of the distinction, which was their salvation.
There followed a true mimicry, and for one or two ages
the Jew was allowed to believe that he was only German,
French, Italian, and so forth …
"The emancipated Jew is insecure in his relations
with his fellow-beings, timid with strangers, suspicious
even toward the secret feeling of his friends. His best
powers are exhausted in the suppression, or at least in
the difficult concealment of his own real
character."
There is little room for ambiguity here. Nordau despises
the emancipated–assimilated Jew, whom he regards as
a deteriorated non-authentic being.
Moses Hess, the famous socialist who was the first
assimilated Jew to turn to Zionism, had warned his Jewish
brothers in 1862 that all their efforts to cast off
Jewishness would be in vain. His argument was utterly
racist: ‘Jewish noses cannot be reformed, and
the black, wavy hair of the Jews will not be changed into
blond by conversion or straightened out by constant
combing.’ According to Hess, assimilation was
impossible, mainly because ‘every Jew is,
whether he wishes it or not, bound unbreakably to the
entire nation’.
Nachman Sirkin, the Zionist socialist directed his attack
solely against the Jewish socialist cosmopolitan.
According to Sirkin, ‘socialism meant, first of
all, the abandonment of Jewishness, just as the
liberalism of the Jewish bourgeoisie led to
assimilation’.
The Zionist fear of assimilation has never subsided. Golad Meir used to say that the biggest threat
to Jewish existence was posed by mixed marriage in
America. It wasn’t the Arabs, the anti-Semites or
the Palestinians whom she failed to accept throughout her
long political career, but the mixed marriages in
America. Basically, Meir was terrified of the
contamination of the Jewish race.
As we can see, Zionism has always been clear on its
position regarding assimilation. The assimilated Jew has
been the prime enemy. He is an enemy because unlike the
Jewish leftist he is not engaged in the Zionist game. In
its early days, when Zionism was a marginal movement,
this approach was understood. At the time, assimilation
was rather attractive. The majority of European Jews were
looking for ways to merge into their surrounding reality.
Most of them were looking for new opportunities beyond
the ghetto.
Zionists in their despair found themselves negotiating
with the most vocal anti-Semites in Europe at the time.
Along the endless list you can find Vyacheslav von
Plevhe, the Russian minister behind the Kishenev pogrom,
the Ukrainian nationalist S.M. Petlura, and of
course much has been written about the collaboration
between the WZO and the Nazis. Zionists promised to help
cleanse Europe of its Jews (both Zionists and assimilated
ones). The assimilated Jews were regarded by Zionism as
an enemy. This is funny considering the fact that
assimilated Jews have never been politically organised.
The only noticeable non-Zionist Jewish movement at the
time was the Jewish Bund, a Jewish socialist organisation
which argued that Jews should take part in a world
socialist revolution rather than emigrating to Palestine.
Considering the history of Zionist animosity towards
assimilated Jews it is rather surprising that these days
so many secular Jews choose to oppose Zionism in the name
of their secular Jewish identity.
In practice they all adopt the Zionists’
perspective. Now – when Israelis and Zionists know
that their dream of national salvation is doomed to fail;
when ethnic cleansing is taking place in Palestine –
it is time to fight Zionism with any possible means and
method.
As far as the secular Jewish agenda is concerned, a real
assimilationist manner would be most appropriate. It is
necessary to fight Zionism as a human being; as an
‘English Jew’ rather than as a ‘Jew who
lives in England’; as a ‘human being who
appears to be Jewish’ rather than as a ‘Jew who
declares himself to be a humanist’. Jews around the
world as well as in Israel must let the Zionists know
that the world out there is far more attractive than the
racist, colonialist murderous dream the Zionists have to
offer. If left-wing Jews are genuine in their fight
against Zionism, they should completely avoid the usage
of Jewish identity as the pillar of their arguments. If
they remain hidden behind their Jewish identity we must
then suspect their call to be a form of a mild left-wing
Zionism.
Jewish secular criticism will start to be effective only
when the Jewish ethnic issue has been completely dropped
from the body of any critical argument. Jews are at their
very best when they leave the ghetto physically and
mentally; when they talk to the hearts of their listeners
without being victims, chosen or righteous; when they
join the human family without prejudice. This is called
assimilation.
Gilad Atzmon©, 13 June 2004
http://www.gilad.co.uk
Coincidences of
kind in History
Dr. Leo Pinsker, a
Russian-Jewish physician was horrified by the events that
took place against the jews in Russia towards the end of
the 1800's. He thought that the Jews could only find
peace and security if they had a land of their own. He
was born in Poland in 1821 and received the best
education a young person could get. After serving Czar
Nicolas 1, Pinsker was stunned by the bloodshed of the
pogroms. He packed his bags and travelled around Europe
to discuss with leading Jews his ideas - that Jewish
people must "emancipate " - free -
themselves by establishing a homeland of their
own. In all these travels Pinsker found little
support for his views. Returning to Russia he anonymously
published a pamphlet in 1982 entitled
"self-emancipation" in which he urged Jews to
liberate themselves.Although being opposed for the rest
of his life by leading Jews in Central and Western
Europe, he had an enormous influence on a small group
of young men and women who believed he was right.
After several years in
Pinsk, Russia, 1892, at the age of eighteen, Chaim
Weitzman went to Germany 
to study at the Polytechnic of Darmstadt.
shortly afterwards he moved to the Institute of
Technology in Berlin. It was there that the Zionist dream
began to take on more realistic meaning, for it was just
at that time that Theodore Herzl's book The Jewish
State" was published. A visit to Moscow helped
Weitzman better understand the difficult circumstances of
the Jews. A frequent attendee at Zionist Congresses, he
was was not optimistic about Herzl's idea of political
and diplomatic efforts to establish Israel for a Jewish
State at a single stroke. Instead he sided with those who
called for gradual settlement i the land. During
his time at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,
Weitzman took a leadig part in student Zonist
activities. Weitzman could not escape his great
passion - Zionism. In 1906 Weitzman met with Arthur
Balfour, the Prime Minister of Britain, at a meeting in
which he successfully explained the attachment the Jews
had for the Biblical land of Israel, talks which had a
trememndous affect on the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Weitzman always represented the more left-wing approach,
supportive of a friendly, peaceful approach with the
Arabs and was a great supporter of "one country for
two people" - something which caused a lot of
tension betwqeen other leaders such as Ben Gurion and
Jabotinsky. In 1948 Weizman was to become the first
President of Israel.
www.jnf.co.uk/.../
20th_century_main_3.htm