A word of explanation from Axis of Logic
Our good friend and fellow editor/publisher, Mary Rizzo, published an intriguing essay by Gilad Atzmon, Where to now, Palestine? Some reflections on her wonderful website - PeacePalestine. We published a reprint of this PeacePalestine essay on Axis of Logic.
Subsequently, one Elias Davidsson authored "An Open Letter to Gil'ad Atzmon", citing Mr. Atzmon's article. Mr. Davidsson's letter was sent to Axis of Logic by a member of his e-mail group. Mr. Atzmon also sent his reply to the letter to Axis of Logic. Below, Mr. Atzmon's letter appears first with Mr. Davidsson's letter following. If you choose to read these letters in the order received, please read from the bottom up. It all began with this article:
Where to now, Palestine? Some reflections
Gilad Atzmon, -Peace Palestine
- Les Blough, Editor
Dear Friends,
I am sorry to disappoint you. I am not going to write a detailed rebuttal to Mr. Davidsson’s open letter. I would offer three reasons. First: I can’t see how the Palestinian cause would benefit from such a debate. Second: I don’t really have the time for that kind of nonsense. I perform every night in front of hundreds of people and engaging with one unhappy Davidsson is for me a total waste of time. Third: It isn’t nice to say it but Mr. Davidsson isn’t exactly a match. Reading his ‘open letter’ suggests that the good man is a conservative modernist who is deeply engaged in some dated vocabulary to do with ‘universal values’.
Photo - Gilad Atzmon (by Manuel Talens)
If Elias Davidsson were just slightly more educated he would probably grasp that the notion of universal humanism isn’t applicable to the Islamic and Judaic subject. Universalism and thinking in universal terms is the fruit of Western philosophy and enlightenment. It is intrinsically linked with the notion of the ‘subject’. Within Judaism and Islam the human is subject to God. He is a follower rather than a free thinker. This differentiation dismantles any possibility of cross-cultural terminological reduction between west and east. In other words, talking about Universal values is in itself a form of Western cultural colonialism. Davidsson wants to be a colonialist, who am I to stop him?
Needless to say, I do not believe in the notion of universal values. In fact, I don’t even know what ‘universal human rights’ are. Furthermore, I tend to be very suspicious of those who claim to know. Just because I open the newspapers from time to time, I know very well that Blair and Bush kill in the name of ‘universal humanism’. Those who follow my writings know pretty well that I am a devoted follower of Martin Heidegger. I believe that beings are shaped by language. In other words, for me, universal discourse and discourse of universality are nothing but meaningless. Moreover, I believe that those who try to impose discourse of universality on others are either ignorant or hegemony seekers.
As I said, I do not have any plans to address Elias Davidsson’s open letter. Instead, I will ask Mr. Davidson to send me or anyone else a bibliographic reference to his open letter following Sheik Yassin’s disgraceful assassination. If Davidsson is so outraged by me, surely the murder of Sheik Yassin must have moved him at least as much. In case he failed to issue such a letter at the time he may as well send me or anyone else his published comment or condolences for the Palestinian people following the brutal murder of Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi. I may press on and ask where were the Elias Davidssons and the gatekeepers of universalist values when the entire leadership of the Hamas was serially liquidated in broad daylight.
Let me say it, somehow they kept quiet. They were very, very quiet. Why did they keep quiet? Because they don’t like the Hamas. Being silent at such a grave time, they basically approved the Israeli controlled assassination policy. Somehow, Davidsson and those like him have very little respect for religious parties, politics inspired by religious tenets and religion in general. Indeed they love the Palestinian people, but only as long as they remind them of themselves i.e., ‘European middleclass atheist Jews ’. If it wasn’t clear until last Wednesday, now it is obvious. The Palestinians aren’t exactly middleclass atheist Jews. This is something Mr. Davidsson finds hard to digest and unfortunately, I can’t help him.
It is that very fact that made me so reluctant to have any contact with any of those ethnic Jewish campaigners. Needless to say, they all had tried to flirt with me and with my music for a very long time. But rather soon I understood that their agenda was totally hypocritical. It wasn’t Palestine that they cared about; it was the maintenance of their own rational atheist ideology at the expense of the Palestinian people.
Dear friends. For more than a while I know that the Palestinian street is drifting towards Islam. I may say it, unlike Davidsson and his ilk, I am not afraid of Islam. In fact I love Islam and love being in a Muslim environment. Moreover, I can see that democracy in the Arab world may lead to Islam while Islam isn’t necessarily committed to maintaining democracy. And how to say it, I am far from being bothered by it because if this is indeed the choice of the masses, it is good enough for me. If this isn’t enough, I am far from being enthusiastic about Democracy anymore. It is within the current phase of western democracy where bloodthirsty war criminals such as Blair, Bush and Sharon were re-elected.
I am not an expert on Islam but I know enough to say that Jews were living under the protection of Islam for hundreds of years. We all know very well that one of the principles of Islam is committed to protecting the foreigner. If I would have to choose between living in an Islamic Palestine or a Jewish one, I would be going for the Islamic one without a single doubt. Moreover, if I have to choose between ‘Jewish democracy’ and Islam I go for the latter.
I may admit that I was pretty concerned before posting my last piece. Most of my Palestinian friends are secular Muslims and Christians. Many of them are affiliated to the Fatah. They are all rather concerned with the latest development in their homeland. As I mentioned in my piece, the vote doesn’t express the will of Exile Palestinians. Anyhow, I understand my Palestinian friends very well. I grew up in Israel, a country that slowly but surely is shifting towards religious fundamentalism. I know what fundamentalism is all about and I know very well that I wouldn’t survive a single day in a Talmudic environment. I understand how difficult it may be for my Palestinian friends who became accustomed to western liberal life. I am aware of it all, and yet, those who dwell in occupied Palestine had their say, they went to the poll and gave all us a major lesson. They presented us with the most heroic spirit of resistance. They told the West, and Israel, and the EU, and the Arab world, and the Davidssons and the other gatekeepers, “you can all bugger off. We know what we want. We are tired of your phoney kindness. We are exhausted of your hypocritical willingness to help. We are sick of your solidarity. We don’t want you to tell us what we are and what we should be. Don’t liberate us and don’t save our women. We will take care of it all from now on. Leave us alone.”
So many times I found myself disappointed and frustrated in this endless struggle against Zionism and its backing world Jewry. So many times I had to pay a heavy price for saying what I believe. This time, for the first time in my life, I do feel a change in the air. The Palestinians are going to win with me or without me. They are going to win because they have nothing to lose. They are going to win because they deserve it.
Sorry my dearest friends, within this change in the air a rebuttal of Davidsson’s 19th century ideology is pathetically meaningless. I have only one duty. I have to travel from town to town and to congratulate the Palestinian people from the stage. This is what I am going to do today and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. I did it in Istanbul for the last 4 days. As you probably can guess, everybody was over the moon. And I tell you why, because the rebellion spirit of the Palestinian resistance is a spirit people can empathise with. You know why? Because the Palestinians are in the forefront of the war against evil.
Gilad Atzmon
Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Where to now, Palestine? Gilad Atzmon
Open letter to Gil'ad Atzmon
In an article entitled "Where to now, Palestine? Some reflections" posted on http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2006/01/gilad-atzmon-where-to-now-palestine.html
(Jan. 26, 2006) Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli jazz musician living in London, takes a dismissive view of liberals and leftists who criticize Hamas for its islamic ideology. I believe that this article deserves a serious response. I have chosen one paragraph of his article to comment upon. My comments follow his text.
[...]
*‘One Democratic and Secular Palestine’ - may be a dated concept and had better be dropped right away.
The overwhelmingly repeated leftist call for ‘one democratic and secular Palestine’, has apparently very little to do with the Palestinian reality. Apparently, the majority of the Palestinian people in Palestine prefer to live in an Islamic state rather than in a secular and democratic one, with democracy not meaning ‘voice of the people’, but rather a limited and restricted Western definition of it. It is now evident that the call for a secular Palestinian state was there to serve the interests of some left-wing Zionist schools a la Yossi Beilin who outrageously denounced the Hamas just days before the election. Surprisingly enough, this very call against the Hamas and in favour of a democratic secular state is rather popular amongst different factions of Jewish Anti-Zionist and Palestinian solidarity groups. Let’s all face it; the Palestinian people have chosen to live in a Muslim state rather than in a secular one. If we are as democratic as we claim to be, it is down to us to respect and welcome the Palestinian people’s choice. I would suggest that to support Palestine is to support the Palestinian people and their right of return regardless of their political, theological or cultural choices.
(a) The call for "one democratic and secular Palestine" is a minority view both among leftists and liberals. Most support "separation" along ethnic/religious lines, as preached by the Zionists and Hamas.
(b) While it is true that this call does not have much relevance for the day-to-day reality in Palestine, it is the only available long-term vision that accomodates justice and human rights for all those who live and want to live in Palestine/Israel. It has therefore very much to do with Palestinian reality.
(c) There is no evidence for the claim that the majority of the Palestinian people "prefer to live in an Islamic state rather than in a secular and democratic one". Such a question has never been asked of the people, let alone broadly discussed. And for such a question to be responded to intelligently, people first need to know what these terms actually mean in the context of the debate. Does an Islamic state mean the imposition of Shari'a rules which discriminate against women and outlaw both conversion of Muslims to other religions and mixed-marriages? Does a secular-democratic state mean the imposition of atheism on all people?
(d) Gilad does not explain what he means by the "limited and restricted Western definition" of democracy. Does he mean the power of corporations ? Does he mean the equality of all people under the law, without racial and religious discrimination ? Does he mean the right of association and free expression ? It is rather cheap to set up a straw man by disparaging Western democracy, as if other forms of "democracy", such as the "popular democracies" of former East Europe or the alleged Ghaddafi democracy are somehow a better model? In any case, Gilad Atzmon has chosen to live in a Western democracy, where his writings are tolerated and he enjoys his full human rights, including those of becoming Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, or remaining a free-thinker.
(e) The claim that the call for a "secular Palestinian state was there to serve the interests of some left Zionist schools" raises questions. For the first, one may ask what actual "interests" are served in this context? Is this call set forth by capitalists who look for gain? A glance at the members of the International Association for One Democratic State in Palestine/Israel shows that a good majority of them are not Jews, but Palestinian Arabs. It might be interesting to know that is their "interest" in this concept? As much as I am aware, there is not a single Zionist "school" which advocates the concept of a "secular Palestinian state" (in the meaning of one state for all inhabitants). Unless, of course, Gilad is trying to mislead his readers by conflating the concept of a unitary secular-democratic State (for all its inhabitants) and the call by Zionists to the Palestinians under occupation to increase democracy in their own ranks.
(f) By claiming - without any base - that the "Palestinian people" as a whole (including all those who have neither voted, who live in exile, and those who voted Hamas for other reasons than Islam) "have chosen to live in a Muslim state rather than in a secular one," Gilad Atzmon in fact gives legitimacy to the argument of Zionists that most Israels have chosen to live in a "Jewish" country. Gil'ad would have us accept that the "Palestinians" (which include a substantial number of Christians) should be allowed to designate their country as Islamic, thus overriding the wishes of their Christian minority while negating such a right to the Jews in Israel. His argument is based on the fact that the "Jews" expelled Palestinians and that these have the right of returning. Now, suppose that most Palestinian refugees will not avail themselves of the right of returning to Israel. Israel will thus remain a "Jewish" State. On what base should then Palestinians be entitled to claim the right to impose Islam as state-religion on the Jewish population of Israel ?
More generally, the arguments of Gil'ad Atzmon for "respecting" a "people's choice of culture and religion", are reflected in the notorious ideology of South Asian governments who claim to protect "Asian values" and reject "universal human rights" principles, such as the right of other nations to comment on the treatment of a country's citizens by its government. Similarly Islamic governments, such as the government of Saudi Arabia, reject the applicability of universal principles of human rights, as the emanation of Western thinking. Cultural exceptionalism is now in vogue, particularly as the Bush administration is turning its back on the principles of universal human rights, by claiming that national legislation trumps universal standards. The rejection by the Bush administration of universal jurisdiction for the most odious crimes, such as genocide, its rejection of universal standards on torture and inhuman treatment, and its rejection of universally binding habeas corpus rules, indicate the way for other governments who have long indulged in such conduct and relish to have such conduct legitimized by the USA. By rejecting, implicitly, universal concepts of human rights as "western" or outdated, Gilad Atzmon, joins the most reactionary trends in today's world: The governments of the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their ilk.
As I consider Gilad Atzmon an intellectual - and I believe that he also does so himself - I appeal to his sense of responsibility. If Gilad Atzmon believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the various international human rights treaties are to be torn into pieces, as mere Western artifacts, I challenge him to say so publicly, in order to clarify to his readers where he stands on this particular subject, or at least designate those principles which he believes should be abolished or amended. This applies, particularly, to those principles which clash with Shari'a law, to which he does not appear to object. I hope that Gil'ad Atzmon will treat seriously this challenge.
Elias Davidsson
Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com
