Friday, 15 February 2013
Adel Samara: .What is wrong with Atzmon calling Zionism as the Jewish version of Nazism?
A few days ago someone asked me about Gilad Atzmon and non-Zionist Jews in general. Although the question of non-Zionist Jews is a complicated one, however, one might offer some points to differentiate a Zionist from a non-Zionist. These points do not apply to Jews only, rather to all.
Any person, party, regime that recognizes the Zionist Ashkenazi Regime (ZAR) is a Zionist, whether he is Jew, Palestinian, Arab or from other place or nationality.
Non-Zionist is a person who believes in all forms of struggle, including military struggle, for the liberation of Palestine and the realization of Palestinians’ Right of Return to their homes and properties.
Non-Zionist is a person who considers the Palestinian Nakba of 1948 as an ongoing Holocaust of the Palestinian people.
BUT any revolutionary is the person who believes in a socialist solution for Palestine as part of a socialist Arab Homeland, in which Jews -- whose overwhelming majority settled Palestine in the course of the Zionist colonialist project -- will be treated as any other cultural/religious group.
I agree that a socialist solution is still too far, it is a vision, but it is the sole real solution. Although I have followed some Atzmon’s work and activities, but I can not say that I am fully aware of his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I had the opportunity of watching an interview with him by Press TV, and I also read a statement published few months prior to that interview and was issued by some Palestinian writers and activists entitled “Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon”.
That statement would have been reasonable if it were published before the Zionist Ashkenazi Regime (ZAR) declared its demand to create a pure “The Jewish State”. If Jews meant a “nation” then there is no such thing.
The Zionist settlers in Palestine came from nearly 100 countries and nations. If the “Jewish state” meant the state of those who believe in Judaism, that means that we are talking about politicization of Judaism, Jewishness, then Gilad is right in his criticism to Jewishness as an ideology. He clearly differentiates between Judaism and Jewishness.
The question that would logically follow:
Why would some Palestinians object to that?
Jewishness is political Judaism.
The same of what I call قوى الدين الإسلامي السياسي/المسيَّس the Forces of Politicized Islamic Religion (FPIR) some call it Political Islam, but it is also present in all religions: neo-conservatism is politicized Christianity and Jewishness is the same as well.
Even if we disagree with Atzmon whether Zionism applies to the Diaspora or that it is no more applicable today, and whether he is post-Zionist or not…etc, we can assume that that it is his own opinion or interpretation or what we call in Arabic Ijtihad.
Why criticizing Atzmon? What is all this fuss about?
Leave it for Zionists to fight him?
Why would Palestinians volunteer that fast!
If this ZAR is apartheid, it is relatively right in the occupied part of Palestine 1948.
In South Africa, there is no expulsion, i.e. Refugee question.
I wonder why would not these Palestinian writers and activists protest against the iconization of Noam Chomsky when he bluntly refuses any form of one state solution because it, in his view, will harm the Jews!
The Holocaust was executed in a short period of time, intensive one, but our Holocaust is a long and extended one.
One final comment on the statement of the Palestinian writers and activists:
What is wrong with Atzmon calling Zionism as the Jewish version of Nazism?
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!