Wars
of the Laptop Bombers
Today's
Stories
January 22
/ 24, 2005
Alexander Cockburn
Prince
Harry's Travails
January 21,
2005
Dave Lindorff
A
Great American Journalist:
John L. Hess (1917-2005)
Sharon Smith
The
Anti-War Movement and the Iraqi Resistance
Don Santina
Baseball, Racism and Steroid Hysteria
Ron Jacobs
Locked Out and Pissed Off: Protesting the Bush Inauguration
Kurt Nimmo
The Problem with Mike Ruppert
Don Monkerud
Once They Were Cults: Bush's Faith-Based Social Services
Alan Farago
Swimming Home from the Galapagos
Derek Seidman
An
Interview with Army Medic and Anti-War Activist Patrick Resta
January 20,
2005
Paul Craig
Roberts
Dying
for Sycophants
William Cook
The
Bush Inauguration: A Mock Epic Fertility Rite
Joshua Frank
The Democrats and Iran: Look Who's Backing Bush's Next
Eric Ruder
Why Andres Raya Snapped: Another Casualty of Bush's War
Mike Whitney
Coronation in a Garrison State
Robert Jensen
A Citizens Oath of Office
Peter Rost
Bush Report on Drug Imports: Good Data, Bad Conclusions
David Underhill
Is It Torture Yet?: the Eclectic Fool Aid Torture Test
James Reiss
Adieu, Colin Powell: Pea Soup in Foggy Bottom
CounterPunch
Staff
Voices
from Abu Ghraib: the Injured Party
How
the Press & the CIA
Killed Gary Webb's Career
January 19,
2005
Marta Russell
Social
Security Privatization & Disability: 8 Million at Risk
Mike Ferner
Marines
Stretching Movement: Protesting Urban Warfare in Toledo
Nancy Oden
The
Nuremberg Principles, Iraq and Torture
Tony Paterson
A Catalogue of British Abuses in Iraq
Dave Lindorff
Bush's Divide-and-Conquer Plan to Destroy Social Security
Doug Giebel
BS and CBS: When 60 Minutes Helped Promote WMD Fantasies
Alexander Cockburn
Will
Bush Quit Iraq?
January 18,
2005
Paul Craig
Roberts
How
Americans Were Seduced by War: Empire and Militant Christianity
Jennifer Van
Bergen
Federal
Judge: Abu Ghraib Abuses Result of Decision to Ignore Geneva
Conventions
Douglas Lummis
It's a No Brainer; Send Graner: a Rap for Our Time
Ron Jacobs
Syria Back in the Crosshairs?
Seth DeLong
Enter the Dragon: Will Washington Tolerate a Venezuelan-Chinese
Oil Pact?
Lance Selfa
Stolen Election?: Most Democrats Didn't Even Bother to Inquire
Paul D. Johnson
Mystery Meat: a Right-to-Know About Food Origins
Elisa Salasin
An Open Letter to Jenna Bush, Future Teacher
January 17,
2005
Heather Gray
Misconceptions
About King's Methods for Social Change
Robert Fisk
Hotel Room Journalism: the US Press in Iraq
Dave Lindorff
What the NYT Death Chart Omitted: Civilians Slaughtered by US
Military
Jason Leopold
Sam Bodman's Smokestacks: Bush's Choice for Energy Czar is One
of Texas's Worst Polluters
Gary Leupp
A Message from the Iraqi Resistance
Douglas Valentine
An Act of State? the Execution of Martin Luther King
Harvey Arden
Welcome to Leavenworth: My First Encounter with Leonard Peltier
Greg Moses
King
and the Christian Left: Where Lip Service is Not an Option
January 15
/ 16, 2005
James Petras
The
Kidnapping of a Revolutionary
Robert Fisk
Flying Carpet Airlines: My Return to Baghdad
Ron Jacobs
Unfit for Military Service
Brian Cloughley
Smack Daddies of the Hindu Kush: Afghanistan's Drug Bonanza
Fred Gardner
The Allowable-Quantity Expert
Dr. Susan Block
The Counter-Inaugural Ball: Eros Day, 2005
John Ross
Zapatista Literary Llife
Suzan Mazur
Unspooking Frank Carlucci
M. Shahid Alam
America's New Civilizing Mission
Frederick B. Hudson
Jack Johnson's Real Opponent: "That I Was a Man"
Mike Whitney
Bush's Grand Plan: Incite Civil War in Iraq
Tom Crumpacker
A Constitutional Right to Travel to Cuba
Bob Burton
The Other Armstrong Williams Scandal
John Callender
La Conchita and the Indomitable 82-Year Old
Lila Rajiva
Christian Zionism
Saul Landau
An Imperial Portrait: a Visit to Hearst's Castle
Doug Soderstrom
A Touch of Evil: the Morality of Neoconservatism
Poets' Basement
Davies, Louise, Landau, Albert, Collins and Laymon
January 14,
2005
Robert Fisk
"The
Tent of Occupation"
Lee Sustar
Bush's Social Security Con Job
José
M. Tirado
The Christians I Know
Dave Zirin
The Legacy of Jack Johnson
Sheldon Rampton
Calling John Rendon: a True Tale of "Military Intelligence"
Tracy McLellan
Under the Influence
Yves Engler
The Dictatorship of Debt: the World Bank and Haiti
Tom Barry
Robert
Zoellick: a Bush Family Man
Website of
the Day
Ryan for the Nobel Prize?
January 13,
2005
Mark Chmiel
/ Andrew Wimmer
Hearts
and Minds, Revisited
Joe DeRaymond
The Salvador Option: Terror,
Elections and Democracy
Greg Moses
Every Hero a Killer?...Not
Dave Lindorff
The Great WMD Fraud: Time for an Accounting
Jorge Mariscal
Dr. Galarza v. Alberto Gonzales: Which Way for Latinos?
Christopher Brauchli
Gonzales and the Death Penalty: the Executioner Never Sleeps
Gary Leupp
"Fighting
for the Work of the Lord": Christian Fascism in America
January 12,
2005
Robert Fisk
Fear
Stalks Baghdad
Josh Frank
The
Farce of the DNC Contest
Jack Random
Casualties
of War: the Untold Stories
John Roosa
Aceh's Dual Disasters: the Tsunami and Military Rule
Carol Norris
In the Wake of the Tsunami
Mike Whitney
Pink Slips at CBS
Alan Farago
Can
the Everglades be Saved?
Paul Craig
Roberts
What's
Our Biggest Problem in Iraq...the Insurgency or Bush?
January 11,
2005
Tom Barry
The
US isn't "Stingy"; It's Strategic: Aid as a Weapon
of Foreign Policy
James Hodge
and Linda Cooper
Voice
of the Voiceless: Father Roy Bourgeois and the School of the
the Americas
Linda S. Heard
Farah Radio Break Down: Joseph Farah's Messages of Hate and Homophobia
Derrick O'Keefe
Electoral Gigolo?: Richard Gere and the Occupied Vote
Gila Svirsky
A Tale of Two Elections
Harry Browne
Irish
"Peace Process", RIP
January 10,
2005
Ramzy Baroud
Faith-Based
Disasters: Tsunami Aid and War Costs
Talli Nauman
Killing
Journalists: Mexico's War on a Free Press
Uri Avnery
Sharon's Monologue
Dave Lindorff
Tucker
Carlson's Idiot Wind
Dave Zirin
Randy
Moss's Moondance
Dave Silver
Left Illusions About the Democratic Party
Charles Demers
Plan Salvador for Iraq: Death Squads Come in Waves
William A.
Cook
Causes
and Consequences: Bush, Osama and Israel
January 8 /
9, 2005
Alexander Cockburn
Say,
Waiter, Where's the Blood in My Margarita Glass?
John H. Summers
Chomsky
and Academic History
Greg Moses
Getting Real About the Draft
Walter A. Davis
Bible Says: the Psychology of Christian Fundamentalism
Victor Kattan
The EU and Middle East Peace
John Bolender
The Plight of Iraq's Mandeans
Robert Fisk
The Politics of Lebanon
Fred Gardner
Situation NORML
Joe Bageant
The Politics of the Comfort Zone
Mickey Z.
I Want My DDT: Little Nicky Kristof Bugs Out
Ben Tripp
CounterClockwise Evolution
Ron Jacobs
Elvis and His Truck: Out on Highway 61
Saul Landau
Sex
and the Country
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Time to End the Blackout
Ellen Cantarow
NPR's Distortions on Palestine
Richard Oxman
Bageantry Continued
Poets' Basement
Gaffney, Landau, Albert, Collins
January 7,
2005
Omar Barghouti
Slave
Sovereignty: Elections Under Occupation
Kent Paterson
The Framing of Felipe Arreaga: Another Mexican Environmentalist
Arrested
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Old
Vijay Merchant and the Tsunami
David Krieger
Cancel the Inauguration Parties
Gideon Levy
New Year, Old Story
Dave Lindorff
Ohio Protest: First Shot Fired by Congressional Progressives
Christopher
Brauchli
Privatizing the IRS
Roger Burbach
/ Paul Cantor
Bush,
the Pentagon and the Tsunami
January 6,
2005
Brian J. Foley
Gonzales:
Supporting Torture is not His Greatest Sin
Greg Moses
Boot
Up America!: Gen. Helmly's Memo Leaks New Bush Deal
Petras / Chomsky
An
Open Letter to Hugo Chavez
Alan Maass
The Decline of the Dollar
Dave Lindorff
Colin Powell's Selective Sense of Horror
Jenna Orkin
The EPA and a Dirty Bomb: 9/11's Disastrous Precedent
P. Sainath
The
Tsunami and India's Coastal Poor
January 5,
2005
Alan Farago
2004:
An Environmental Retrospective
Winslow T.
Wheeler
Oversight
Detected?: Sen. McCain and the Boeing Tanker Scam
Jean-Guy Allard
Gary Webb: a Cuban Perspective
Fred Gardner
Strutting, Smirking, As If The Mad Plan Was Working
David Swanson
Albert Parsons on the Gallows
Richard Oxman
The Joe Bageant Interview
Bruce Jackson
Death
on the Living Room Floor
January 4,
2005
Michael Ortiz
Hill
Mainlining
Apocalypse
Elaine Cassel
They
Say They Can Lock You Up for Life Without a Trial
Yoram Gat
The
Year in Torture
Martin Khor
Tragic
Tales and Urgent Tasks from the Tsunami Disaster
Gary Leupp
Death
and Life in the Andaman Islands
January 3,
2005
Ron Jacobs
The
War Hits Home
Dave Lindorff
Is
There a Single Senator Who Will Stand Up for Black Voters?
Mike Whitney
The Guantanamo Gulag
Joshua Frank
Greens and Republicans: Strange Bedfellows
Maria Tomchick
Playing Politics with Disaster Aid
Rhoda and Mark
Berenson
Our Daughter Lori: Another Year of Grave Injustice
David Swanson
The Media and the Ohio Recount
Kathleen Christison
Patronizing
the Palestinians
January 1 /
2, 2005
Gary Leupp
Earthquakes
and End Times, Past and Present
Rev. William
E. Alberts
On "Moral Values": Code Words for Emerging Authoritarian
Tendencies
M. Shahid Alam
Testing Free Speech in America
Stan Goff
A Period for Pedagogy
Brian Cloughley
Bush and the Tsunami: the Petty and the Petulant
Sylvia Tiwon
/ Ben Terrall
The Aftermath in Aceh
Ben Tripp
Requiem for 2004
Greg Moses
A Visible Future?
Steven Sherman
The 2004 Said Awards: Books Against Empire
Sean Donahue
The Erotics of Nonviolence
James T. Phillips
The Beast's Belly
David Krieger
When Will We Ever Learn
Poets' Basement
Soderstrom, Hamod, Louise and Albert
December 23,
2004
Chad Nagle
Report
from Kiev: Yushchenko's Not Quite Ready for Sainthood
David Smith-Ferri
The
Real UN Disgrace in Iraq
Bill Quigley
Death
Watch for Human Rights in Haiti
Mickey Z.
Crumbs
from Our Table
Christopher Brauchli
Merck's Merry X-mas
Greg Moses
When
No Law Means No Law
Alan Singer
An
Encounter with Sen. Schumer: a Very Dangerous Democrat
David Price
Social
Security Pump and Dump
Website of the Day
Gabbo Gets Laid
December 22,
2004
James Petras
An
Open Letter to Saramago: Nobel Laureate Suffers from a Bizarre
Historical Amnesia
Omar Barghouti
The Case for Boycotting Israel
Patrick Cockburn / Jeremy Redmond
They Were Waiting on Chicken Tenders When the Rounds Hit
Harry Browne
Northern Ireland: No Postcards from the Edge
Richard Oxman
On the Seventh Column
Kathleen Christison
Imagining
Palestine
Website of the Day
FBI Torture Memos
December 21,
2004
Greg Moses
The
New Zeus on the Block: Unplugging Al-Manar TV
Dave Lindorff
Losing
It in America: Bunker of the Skittish
Chad Nagle
The View from Donetsk
Dragon Pierces
Truth*
Concrete
Colossus vs. the River Dragon: Dislocation and Three Gorges Dam
Patrick Cockburn
"Things Always Get Worse"
Seth DeLong
Aiding Oppression in Haiti
Ahmad Faruqui
Pakistan and the 9/11 Commission's Report
Paul Craig
Roberts
America
Locked Up: a System of Injustice
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
Weekend Edition
January 22 / 24, 2005
Identity Crisis
Zionism
and Other Marginal Thoughts
By
GILAD ATZMON
One way to look into marginal politics
is to illuminate the problematic tension between demands for
equality and the maintenance of clannish supremacist world views.
I am referring here to the difficult duality involved in requesting
to be seen like everyone else while considering oneself to be
superior. At first glance, it seems as if a humanist demand to
equalise civil rights would address the issue and resolve any
form of tension between the margin and the centre. But marginal
politics intends to defeat any humanistic call for equalisation.
For the marginal politician, assimilation, emancipation, integration
and even liberation are death threats.
Once assimilated, the margin
may face a severe 'identity crisis'. To a certain extent, the
marginal subject is asked to renounce his particularity and singularity.
Following integration, the heroic 'pre-revolutionary' days of
the righteous struggle for civil rights are replaced by a nostalgic
narrative. In its post-revolutionary phase, what had once been
the margin becomes an unnoticeable entity, an ordinary crowd.
Thus, we should deduce that, at least at the level of identity,
the demand for equality is in itself a self-defeating mechanism.
Once equal, one is no different from anyone else. The success
of integration may transform any meaningful marginal self-realisation
into irrelevant anachronistic content. This is the reason that
we find so few marginal politicians who willingly endorse a political
call for assimilation. Such a call would mean political suicide,
a self-imposed destruction of one's political power.
By contrast, we can easily
conceive of an individually motivated tendency towards assimilation;
we can envisage a member of the so-called margin searching for
ways to integrate within mainstream society. A glimpse into the
social reality of pre-Second World War European Jews provides
an interesting insight into the issue. Assimilation has never
been presented as a Jewish marginal political call. It was rather
individual Jews who welcomed and enjoyed European liberal tendencies.
I would add that even the Bund that supported Jewish political
assimilation insisted on maintenance of Jewish cultural heritage.
A survey of our surrounding
contemporary Western reality would reveal an image of multiplicity.
Our society is an amalgam in which many who were once marginal
are now fully assimilated and integrated. Moreover, various minorities
do not even regard their integration as a process of assimilation
but rather as a natural celebration of their civil rights. This
natural tendency to merge with one's surrounding society is seen
by the marginal politician as a major threat.
This essay offers a critical
perspective on different aspects of marginal political thought.
I argue that theories and political thoughts should be differentiated
by their strategies of justification rather than by their mere
content. Further, I suggest that something is inherently dangerous
in any form of marginal politics. My focus here is the marginal
politics of Zionist and lesbian separatist thinking. Although
this paper criticizes marginal political discourse and thought,
by no means does it suggest any criticism of the marginal subject
or any minority whatsoever.
The Margin
'The margin' is a term that
refers to those who live on the edge of society. It describes
those who fall behind, those who cannot express their authentic
voice within mainstream discourse. The margin is always oppressed,
harassed, humiliated, subject to despicable jokes, and so forth.
The margin is marginal as long as its pain is not acknowledged
within the main discourse. The margin retains its marginal qualities
as long as the injustices committed against it are not
addressed within mainstream discourse. Once the particularity
of the margin is recognised and accepted by the crowd, the margin
becomes an inherent part of the larger community; in other words,
it becomes a minority group or even just an ordinary crowd. Hence,
it should be accepted that the state of being marginal is, at
least to certain extent, defined by the centre.
But then, one should ask, can the margin also be understood
within its own terms? Can the margin be defined by its own means?
Is being a lesbian enough to turn one into a 'marginal lesbian'
regardless of the surrounding social circumstances? How can one
decide whether one belongs to any given margin? Is being a Jew,
a Muslim, a gay or an ethnic Albanian enough to transform one
into a 'marginal identity'? Clearly not. We can think of many
Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians and ethnic Albanians who detach
themselves from any ties with marginal identification. They do
not see themselves as marginal; nor are they seen as such by
their surrounding environment. The margin, therefore, is dynamic
and shaped by its relationship with the centre. The margin is
that which fails to be the centre. The margin is defined in terms
of negation (i.e. what it isn't) rather than by its positive
qualities (i.e. what it is). This is the reason that marginal
politics is so concerned with depicting reality in terms of binary
oppositions. For the gay ideologist the binary opposition is
gay/heterosexual; for the feminist politician it is femininity/masculinity;
for the Zionist it is Jew/gentile and Zionist/diaspora Jew. The
marginal subject is inclined to define itself via a process of
negative dialectic.
As soon as the centre is willing to expand its categorical understanding
of itself, the margin's reality fades; the margin becomes merely
a minority. This is the point at which marginal politics interferes
and the binary opposition is introduced.
The marginal politician is engaged in the maintenance of negation.
This negation is usually achieved by elevating hostility towards
the margin within the centre. The Zionist is there to provoke
anti-Semitism. Similarly, gay marginal politics is dependent
on the existence of homophobia and the feminist maintains the
image of patriarchal society. It seems as if marginal politics
is destined to engage in an ideological exchange with mainstream
discourse. It is there to retain negation. And yet, the question
remains: can the marginal define itself by its own means? In
order to address this question we must grasp the notion of identity.
Identity, Identification and
Authenticity
In order to transform 'marginal self-perception' into a meaningful
notion, the marginal subject must assume that being a 'marginal
subject' conveys a real and authentic identity. An American Jewish
settler living on confiscated Palestinian land must genuinely
believe that being on occupied land, being daily engaged in an
endless list of war crimes and breaching all possible moral codes,
while risking his own life and the lives of members of
his family, constitute direct fulfillment of his 'true self'.
The settler must believe that he is the son of Abraham and that
this relation to his ancestor grants him special rights where
Palestinian land is concerned. The marginal subject must believe
that he conveys a genuine self.
Belief in a truly authentic identity is crucial for the realisation
of the self as a genuine autonomous agent, but is authenticity
possible? A phenomenological thinker may say yes. Husserl argues
that we can refer to 'Evidez', which is 'awareness' of matter
itself as disclosed in the most clear, distinct and adequate
way for something of its kind. Accordingly, one can experience
a pure awareness of oneself. This notion was articulated by Descartes'
cogito: 'I think therefore I am.' In phenomenological terms,
it is the pure and lucid 'awareness' of me thinking which removes
any doubt concerning me 'being in the world', at least as a thinking
entity. Phenomenology attempts to describe how the world is constituted
and experienced through conscious acts and what is given to us
in immediate experience without being mediated by preconceptions
and theoretical notions. According to phenomenology, one's
self-awareness can depict an unmediated authentic form of knowledge.
It didn't take long for Husserl's student Martin Heidegger to
expose major cracks in his teacher's philosophical endeavour.
Heidegger revealed that 'being in the world' might be slightly
more complicated than Husserl had suggested. It was the former's
notion of hermeneutics that exposed the shortcomings of Husserl's
phenomenology. Hermeneutics deals with the complex interaction
between the interpreting subject and the interpreted object.
Within his critical reading of Husserl, Heidegger exposed the
embarrassing fact that unmediated awareness is actually hard
to conceive. Human beings, it appears, do 'belong to language'.
Language is out there before one comes to the world. Once one
enters the realm of language, a separating wall made of symbolic
lingual bricks and cultural mortar blocks one's access
to any possible unmediated awareness. Can we think without applying
language? Can we experience at all without the mediation of language?
Admittedly, we are capable of feeling desire while dreaming or
being overwhelmed by beauty but then, as soon as we think it
through, we find ourselves entangled in a process of naming.
As soon as we name, the awareness ceases to be unmediated. Once
within the realm of language, our perception of the world is
shaped by meanings that are not ours. It would seem that a comprehensive
authentic awareness is impossible.
If this is the case, there is no longer room to talk about identity
in terms of a genuine expression of a real self. Unmediated self-awareness
is not available to any of us. Even when we touch the sublime
or come across an inexpressible unmediated experience, as soon
as we aim to share it even simply within ourselves, we are already
surrendering to language. Hence, looking into oneself can never
reveal an authentic identity.
Alternatively, we may be able think of identity as a set of ideas,
narratives or 'thinking modes', as a world view or a perception.
But then rather than really talking in terms of a genuine
'self-awareness' we are intentionally moving to deal with a mental
process that is better described as 'identification'. We identify
with ideas, narratives, thinking modes, certain world views,
perceptions and so on. We must then accept that when we talk
about identity we are really talking about identification. The
notion of identity that is so crucial for post-modernist and
marginal theoreticians is a myth. When we refer to 'marginal
identity', what we really mean is 'marginally identifying'.
Thus, being a lesbian is not enough to turn one into a 'marginal
lesbian'. While being a 'lesbian' is a state of being, being
a 'marginal lesbian' is a form of identification. As we can see
the marginal subject cannot define itself by its own means. The
American Jewish settler who mistakenly believes that he follows
his true call is in fact simply identifying with a messianic
Zionist identity. He is identifying with an external idea rather
than revealing his 'real self'.
As we come to view identity as a meaningless term, we move towards
an understanding of self-perception as a dynamic mechanism. When
talking about identity we refer to an axis of identification:
at one pole we find the elusive notion of authenticity produced
from unmediated self-awareness (something that is almost impossible
to achieve), at the other pole we find a state of estrangement
that is achieved by identification. Thus, the search for one's
genuine identity should be associated with utter misery: the
more one searches for one's authentic self the more one is engaged
in the process of identification that will eventually lead to
complete alienation. Here I turn to Lacan's subversive twist
on Descartes' cogito, in which 'I think therefore I am'
became 'You are where you do not think.' If anything, thinking
removes one from oneself. Identification positions one far from
any possible authenticity.
Back to 'Marginal Politics'
It appears, therefore, that identity is a myth and authentic
awareness a rare experience. Thus, the marginal subject cannot
define itself by its own means. The statement: 'I look into myself
and see a Zionist, a gay, a woman, a nation, a watermelon and
so on' is anything but an expression of authentic awareness.
What it really means is: I identify with the Zionist, gay, woman,
nation ... Again, 'Zionist', 'gay', 'woman' and so forth are
lingual expressions that are communally and collectively assigned.
They are not within the realm of unmediated privacy. But then
even 'I feel gay', 'I am a lesbian' and 'I feel Jewish' are not
authentic, unmediated expressions. Such expressions only mean
that an external lingual web orchestrates our feelings. Once
we think, we are already defeated by the dictatorial power of
language.
Marginal communities are generally very sensitive to the power
of language and this is probably the reason that a substantial
amount of their political energy is concerned with imposing lingual
restrictions within the mainstream discourse (usually in the
name of political correctness). This is the reason that marginal
communities are so creative in their use of marginal languages.
The Zionists' relationship with the resurrected Hebrew language
is a good example. Early Zionists realised that full control
over language would allow them to impose their world view on
subsequent generations of Jews. But Zionists are not alone in
this respect. Other marginal groups are known for their creative
dialects, spelling and vocabulary. The following list presents
different spellings for the word woman/women used by lesbian
separatists in the 1970s: wimmin, wimyn, womyn, womin. These
alternative spellings were intended to 'prove' that, at least
symbolically, woman could be 'complete' even when the word man/men
was taken out of woman/women. 'We, as womyn, are not a sub-category
of men' (http://www.msu.edu/).
The lingual meaning defines the world view.
But then, if language has such a crucial role in marginal politics,
the margin can never detach itself from the centre. Even when
it establishes its own discourse, this discourse can only be
realised in terms of its relationship with mainstream discourse.
Moreover, if there is no room for self-grounded marginal identity
in terms of self-realization or self-awareness, we are bound
to deal with the margin in terms of its pragmatic strategies
of exchange with the mainstream discourse.
The Strategies
Lobbying
Since the possibility of assimilation
is occasionally presented to the margin by the hegemony, opportunities
for integration within the centre are available to the marginal
subject. Assimilated Jewish Americans have always been extremely
excited about the possibility of becoming American patriots.
Many American Jews have found their way into the leading classes
via the academic world, banking, real estate, the stock market,
the media, politics and so on. But since they have been in key
positions within mainstream society, their patriotic tendencies
have been challenged by those they had left in the margins. Zionist
lobbies in America specialise in tracing rich and influential
Jews. They pressurise them to 'come out of the closet' and to
show greater commitment to the Jewish nationalist venture. Gay
marginal politicians behave similarly. Some marginal politicians
seek to shame their integrated brothers and sisters. This
serves two purposes. First, it conveys a clear message that real
assimilation is impossible: once a gay, always a gay; once a
Jew always a Jew. This logic was reflected in a recent Hollywood
cinematic cartoon. Shrek and Princess Fiona were doomed to find
out that 'Once an ogre always an ogre. One can never escape one's
real identity.' Second, it pushes the assimilated being towards
collaboration with his old clan. You will never escape being
who you are so you had better be proud of it. The American Zionist
takes this ideology one step further, telling the assimilated
Jew: 'You will never escape being who you are so why not be proud
of it and work for us.' These points help us understand the impact
of Jewish political lobbies within the American administration.
Moreover, they may give an explanation for the growth of Jewish
espionage within America's strategic centres and businesses.
Let us review the logic behind
this strategy. At the first Zionist Congress, in 1897, Chaim
Weizmann announced: 'There are no English, French, German or
American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany
or America.' According to Weizmann, first you are a Jew and then
an American. In other words, Weizmann called for Jews to celebrate
their sameness; he aimed to remove or even eliminate differences
between them. Being Jewish is an essential characteristic; all
other qualities are contingent. Thus it would seem that even
the 'good Jews', those who protest against Israeli atrocities
while shouting 'not in my name', fall into Weizmann's trap. First
they are Jews and only then are they humanists. In practice,
without understanding it, they adopt Weizmann's anti-assimilationist
strategy. In other words, they prove that the clan is
more important than any other category. Weizmann's strategy is
sophisticated and hard to tackle. Even saying 'I do not agree
with Israel although I am a Jew' is to fall into the clannish
trap. Having fallen into the trap, one cannot leave the clan
behind; one can never endorse a universal language. As bizarre
as it may sound, even when one denounces one's own clan one is
destined to approve the clannish marginal philosophy.
In the early days of Zionism most Jews refused to buy the Weizmann
agenda, preferring to see themselves as American, British or
French people who happened to be Jewish. This dispute between
the individual Jew and the Zionist movement developed into a
bitter conflict. During their struggle for recognition, Zionists
admitted their contempt for the diaspora Jew. This was essentially
the birth of Zionist separatism. Zionists confronted the Jewish
people in the name of the call for their liberation.
Separatism
Before the emancipation the
Jew was a stranger among the peoples, but he did not for a moment
think of making a stand against his fate. He felt himself as
belonging to a race of his own, which had nothing in common with
the other people of the country. The emancipated Jew is insecure
in his relations with his fellow-beings, timid with strangers,
suspicious even toward the secret feeling of his friends.
Max Nordau, address
at the first Zionist Congress, Basle, 1897
The term 'separatism' refers
to the process in which a minority group chooses to break away
from a larger group. Separation is called for as soon as the
marginal politician senses immanent danger of integration into
mainstream society. Separatism refers not only to attempts to
create alternative societies, but also to exclusionary practices
within marginal communities themselves.
Zionism developed as a reaction to the emancipation of European
Jewry, a process that started with the French Revolution and
spread rapidly all over Europe during the nineteenth century.
By the late nineteenth century a few prominent assimilated Jews
(such as Nordau, Herzl and Weizmann) realised that emancipation
of the Jewish people might lead towards the disappearance of
the Jewish identity. Their argument was simple: ghetto walls
had been demolished and yet Jews were failing to integrate into
European life.
Additionally, the Europeans
were accused of being insincerely sympathetic towards Jews: 'The
nations which emancipated the Jews have mistaken their own feelings.
In order to produce its full effect, emancipation should first
have been completed in sentiment before it was declared by law.'
The argument is of a very basic character: first you should love
me and only then should you marry me. This idea appears reasonable
but we have to remember that, unlike a love affair, civil life
is based on respect rather than affection. I expect my neighbour
to respect me; he may as well love me but I can never demand
it.
In order to support their views,
Zionists illustrated an image of emerging anti-Semitism. Their
illustration was far from accurate. In fact, by the late nineteenth
century Jews were already deeply involved in every possible aspect
of European civil life. Moreover, the Zionist leaders themselves
were highly integrated within their Christian context. But a
persistent myth of persecution was needed.
On 15 October 1894 Captain
Alfred Dreyfus, the sole Jewish member of the French army's General
Staff, was detained on charges of spying for Germany. Throughout
his trial Dreyfus declared his innocence. For many it was clear
that Dreyfus was a victim of a despicable racist allegation.
Theodor Herzl, a prominent Viennese journalist who traveled to
Paris to cover the trial, was moved by the saga and deduced from
it that assimilation was doomed to fail. The only solution according
to Herzl was '[a] promised land, where we can have hooked noses,
black or red beards without being despised for it. Where we
can live at least as free men on our own soil, and where we can
die peacefully in our own fatherland' (Judenstaat, Theodor
Herzl). Apparently the trial had an immense impact on Herzl but,
as Lenni Brenner points out, 'Herzl misunderstood the Dreyfus
case. The secrecy of the trail, and Dreyfus' insistence on his
innocence, convinced many that injustice was done' (Zionism
in the Age of the Dictators ).
In fact the case created a
huge surge of gentile support. Although Dreyfus never managed
to clear himself (in a retrial that took place in 1899 Dreyfus
was found guilty again), the French government bowed to pressure
and reduced his sentence. Following the intense support of French
intellectuals and the European left, Zionism lost its grip in
France. The French Jews felt truly emancipated. Herzl's displeasure
was evident in the following extract from his diary: '[French
Jews] seek protection from the socialists and the destroyers
of the present civil order truly they are not Jews anymore.
To be sure, they are not Frenchmen either. They will probably
become the leaders of European anarchism.' It would appear that
Herzl, a marginal politician, sensed better than anyone else
the immanent threat of Jewish integration. This example illustrates
the essence of separatist ideologies; they aim at putting barriers
between people. As we can see, Herzl, the separatist politician,
came up against his fellow Jews. Separatism is a strategy of
ghetto building and Zionists have followed this strategy since
the late nineteenth century. And yet, who are the first to suffer?
Of course, those Jews who are weak enough to take Zionist Separatism
seriously and those who are doomed to be born into a Zionist
reality in Israel.
The case of lesbian separatism
is very similar. In the 1970s, when women were closing social
gaps and achieving greater equality, a radical militant feminist
tendency developed. In her article 'The Way of All Separatists'
(Blatant Lesbianism, 1978 Sydney Magazine. P.10-13 ),
Ludo McFingers writes: 'They hate men, see women as a sex class,
support biological determinism, reject reformism and despise
the left.'
The underlying premise of lesbian
separatism is that men cannot or will not change. Consequently,
women can only guarantee their own freedom by detaching themselves
from men. Some separatist women suggest a need for violent confrontation
with men to overthrow their power. Not surprisingly some of the
most radical lesbian separatists would prefer to live in a world
entirely free of men and some have gone so far as to state that
'Dead men don't rape'. One is reminded here of the equally devastating
Zionist expression 'A good Arab is a dead Arab.'
The similarities between Zionist
and feminist separatists are evident. Moreover, from time to
time the two radical ideologies merge into a singular devastating
voice. When it was suggested to the American Jewish feminist
Andrea Dworkin that the idea of Womenland was insane she answered:
'didn't they say that about Israel? And didn't the world think
that Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, was
a crank? The Jews got a country because they had been persecuted,
said that enough was enough, decided what they wanted and went
out and fought for it. Women should do the same. And if you don't
want to live in Womenland, so what? Not all Jews live in Israel,
but it is there, a place of potential refuge if persecution comes
to call as the Jews fought for Israel so women have the right
to execute that's right, execute rapists and the
state should not intervene' (Guardian, 13 May 2000). Earlier
in the same interview, Dworkin, the 'far left' activist, admitted
that 'She remains a supporter of Israel's right to exist, of
the Jewish right to have their own state and the Jewish right
to fight back against those who tried and still try to kill them;
just as she thinks that women have the right to fight back, even
kill, the men who have abused them.' Dworkin may represent the
views of a minority but the ideological similarities between
the two calls are clear.
A long time ago I found that
through the replacement of the word 'woman' with 'Jew' and the
word 'man' with 'gentile', a lesbian separatist text could be
transformed smoothly into a radical Zionist pamphlet and vice
versa. Lesbian separatism is a form of 'ultimate feminism'; it
requires a shift from the realisation that 'every woman can be
a lesbian' to the radical perception that 'every woman should
be a lesbian' ('Women,
Wimmin, Womyn, Womin, Whippets On Lesbian Separatism',
Julie McCrossin).
Similarly, a Zionist would
argue that 'every Jew should be a Zionist' rather than that 'every
Jew can be a Zionist'. Some Zionists would go further to argue
that since Israel is 'the state of the Jewish people' every Jew
should be seen as a Zionist. Accordingly, rejection of Zionism
by a Jew should be considered an act of treason, or at least
self-hatred. Naturally, most women would not seriously accept
their categorisation by radical feminists. I would say that,
at least before the Second World War, the majority of Jews were
offended by the Zionist call. It appears that the Holocaust and
its industrial exploitation by Zionist institutions changed the
attitude of world Jewry towards Zionism and Israel. The Holocaust
was the biggest Zionist victory, just as a single case of a rape
is seen by feminist separatists as proof of the validity of their
theories. As we have seen, marginal politics is maintained by
hostility against oneself. In order sustain marginal politics
one should evoke loathing against oneself. Zionists need burned
synagogues and lesbian separatists need rape victims. If there
were no burned synagogues the Zionist would burn some himself.
If there were no rape victims the lesbian separatist would invent
a lie. Within the separatist world view, such behaviour is legitimate
because strategy and campaign are more important than any moral
code. From a separatist point of view everybody out there is
an enemy.
The Single Narrative
Imposing lingual restrictions
within the mainstream discourse serves the marginal cause. Political
correctness is, in fact, a political stand that doesn't allow
any political opposition. On the surface it looks like a revolt
against the notion of freedom of speech. But the marginal politician
aims at establishing a single narrative, a singular vision of
reality, with a clear particular historical account.
A single narrative is an interpretation
that opposes the possibility of competing interpretations. It
is a narrative that includes a refutation of any possible competitive
narrative within its body of arguments or set of ideas. The marginal
politician aims to dictate the acceptance of a single narrative
within both the margin and mainstream society.
Within the margin, such a task
can be easily achieved. Since marginal identity is based on collective
identifying with an artificially constructed set of ideas,
meanings and appearances, all the politician has to do is locate
the desirable narrative within the body of the identified set.
Being a Zionist simply means that one is identifying with
the Zionist single narrative. For instance, it means a total
acceptance of the Zionist vision of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
as well as an acceptance of the official Zionist account of the
Holocaust.
But then, how can the marginal
politician impose a single narrative on the entire society or
on distinct cultures? How can he impose politically correct idioms?
The case of the Holocaust is a classic example. No one in the
West is allowed to suspect the official Zionist narrative of
the Holocaust and this prohibition is (in some countries) imposed
by law. Furthermore, Zionists demand that their enemies, the
Arab countries, endorse their Holocaust narrative. While every
junior Second World War researcher realises that the official
Zionist tale falls short of providing a comprehensive account
of the complexity of the events, no one is allowed to suspect
the Zionist tale in public. Anyone who exposes the extensive
collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis is labelled
a 'revisionist'; anyone who suspects the figures, the measure,
or even the order of events becomes a Holocaust denier. It would
appear that Zionists have managed to prevent the West from accessing
one of the most devastating chapters of Western history. The
West, it seems, has willingly obeyed.
How does the Zionist manage
to dictate a single narrative? My view is that, at certain moments,
the Zionist narrative has suited Western leading classes and
political decision-makers. For instance, the Zionists shaped
their narrative to make it to fit nicely into the post-Second
World War American world view. Herein lies the essence of political
Zionism: it is an attempt to establish symbiotic relationships
between Zionism and major colonial forces. This is the story
of the bond between Zionism and the different super powers: first
the Ottoman Empire, then the British Empire, now the United States.
Zionism is not unique in this
respect. It is not a coincidence that feminist groups were the
first to 'declare war' against the Taliban, many years before
President Bush realised where Afghanistan was (assuming that
he now knows). And yet very few marginal groups have been as
successful as Zionists in dictating their narratives. I have
no doubt that the official Zionist account of the Holocaust suited
the victorious Anglo-American Allies very well. Within the vast
acceptance of the tragedy of the Jewish people, no one really
found the time to discuss in detail the Allies' murderous bombing
raids of German cities, clear attacks against innocent German
civilians. According to the Zionist narrative the Americans were
the liberators (which isn't really the case: it was mainly Soviets
who liberated the East European camps) and the Germans were the
killers. Within the commonly adopted Zionist Holocaust narrative
there is little reason to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Why should we? Isn't Auschwitz terrible enough? The Americans
represent the ultimate good; the rest are evil (sometime even
the 'axis of evil'). This very restrictive world view allowed
the Americans to turn their attentions to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan
and Iraq. Since the Second World War there has not been a single
year in which the USA has failed to bomb innocent civilians.
Until recently, Americans were seen by many as the ultimate liberators,
the champions of democracy and freedom, those who fought Hitler
and liberated Europe. But in practice it wasn't even Hitler that
they fought with, it was Stalin. The decision to raid the beaches
of Normandy in June 1944 was actually the outcome of Hitler's
defeat in Stalingrad. The Americans and British realised that
unless they join the war in Western Europe immediately, they
would soon have to face a reality of red soldiers in Calais.
The Americans didn't only endorse the Zionist Holocaust narrative;
they owned at least some of the copyrights. Within the heavily
dictated Zionist Holocaust narrative, the Allies liberated Europe
and saved the Jews. The fact that the main initiative was blocking
Stalin has been completely neglected. The Zionists never raised
too many questions. They never asked their allies why they did
little to help the Jews during the war. They never really asked
why they didn't bomb Auschwitz. Within the acceptance of the
Zionist account, many of the most crucial questions have been
pushed under the carpet. This obviously suits both the Americans
and the Zionists.
Thus, the domination of a marginal
single narrative should be understood as an outcome of a symbiotic
partnership between the margin and some key elements within the
centre. It usually happens when the marginal narrative is made
to suit the mainstream narrative. Consequently, the Zionists
should realise that the success of their Holocaust narrative
might be temporary. Within a political and intellectual shift
in the West, the Zionist tale will be abandoned or at least severely
modified.
The Sabra,
the Settler, the Dyke and the Queer
The Sabra, Tough and Tender
the Native born Israeli has been given a sobriquet 'Sabra'
after the wild cactus which flourishes in the arid soil of Israel,
the fruit of this plant is prickly on the outside and soft in
the inside. This implies that our sabres are tough, brusque,
inaccessible and yet surprisingly gentle and sweet within. The
nickname is given affectionately and is borne with pride of our
young, who enjoy the reputation that they cannot be 'savoured'
from outward appearances.
'But you don't look Jewish'
is the dubious compliment a young Israeli usually receives when
he goes abroad. The Sabra is usually a head taller than his father,
often blond and freckled, often blue eyed and snub nosed. He
is cocky, robustly built, and likes to walk in open sandals in
a free swinging, lazy slouch.
Tough and Tender,
an art installation by Gabi Gofbarg, 1992
I would like now to analyse
the prospects of marginal stereotypical behaviour in terms of
a dialectic of identity. It is apparent that marginal identities
are quick to adopt eccentric behavioural codes that make the
marginal subject unmistakably distinguishable. On the surface
it would make sense: the newly liberated identity celebrates
its detachment from the oppressive mainstream society. It would
seem as though the marginal subject was revealing its 'true self'.
As discussed above, the notion of manifested true identity cannot
be taken seriously. Nonetheless, we can allow ourselves to move
one step forwards. If the notion of the real self is left out
or vague, then an external means of identification is required.
This would explain the fact even the most lefty Zionists, those
who regarded themselves as atheists, haven't given up on the
idea of circumcising their sons. All things considered, appearance
is more important than ideology. Marginal identities make themselves
easily distinguishable in the crowd. This applies to the Sabra,
the settler, the orthodox Jew, but also to any other stereotypical
marginal identity (the dyke, the queer and so forth).
I will now dig into one of
the most notable twentieth-century caricatures of marginal identity,
the Sabra. Zionism claims to reveal the true essence of the liberated
Jew. The Sabra is the stereotypical icon of that liberated identity.
As we should expect, the Sabra,
being a separatist Jew, is defined in terms of negation in relation
to the 'inauthentic' diaspora Jew. 'Like a wild cactus' the Sabra
'flourishes in arid soil', while the despised humiliated European
Jew declines mentally in reactionary Europe. The Sabra 'is prickly
on the outside and soft in the inside', while the 'speculative
capitalist' 'Diaspora Jew' appears soft on the outside but is
extremely shrewd where business is concerned. The Sabra is 'tough
and tender'; he can kill like a real 'man' when he has to but
this doesn't stop him from crying like a 'woman' on the 'Weeping
Wall' as soon as he has completed an invasion of the Old City
of Jerusalem. He can ethnically cleanse the entire Palestinian
population on Friday and then attend a 'Peace Now' demonstration
in Tel Aviv on Saturday evening. Unlike the 'softy' humiliated
bent Jew, the Sabra is tough; he is 'a head taller than his father'.
Like a German soldier he is: 'often blond often blue eyed
He is cocky, robustly built.' But then unlike a German soldier
he likes to walk in open (biblical) sandals in a 'free swinging,
lazy slouch '. Basically he is kind of a compromise between an
SS commander and a biblical Moses. A kind of Nazi in jeans, a
puss in boots. As interesting as this caricature is, there is
nothing authentic about this outrageous construction. As an Israeli
male secular Jew between the 1940s and 1980s one was destined
to participate willingly in a process that would rob one of any
sense of authenticity.
As funny as it may sound, the
birth of the settler Jew, a radical messianic militant who plans
to confiscate the entire 'land of biblical Israel', is an attempt
to bring the Sabra back home. It is an effort to resolve the
impossible schizophrenic Sabra identity. Like the Sabra, the
settler walks in open sandals in the winter; like the Sabra he
is slightly athletic and robustly built (until the age of twenty-two,
when he grows a gigantic belly that stands as a symbol for good
Jewish health). But then, unlike the Sabra, he has a skullcap
on his head, his Tzizit falls out of his trousers and patches
of hair cover his young face. He is far from being handsome.
As a matter of fact he is pretty ugly. Needless to say, he fails
to resemble a Wehrmacht soldier. He looks very much like a diaspora
Jew strapped to an Uzi automatic rifle. He looks like a Jew because
he is one and he is proud to be one.
May I mention, within the same
breath, the astonishing fact that the biggest crimes against
the Palestinian indigenous population were committed by so-called
left Sabras, by young IDF officers, soldiers such as Rabin and
Sharon (for those who don't know, Sharon's political origins
are within the Israeli left; for years he himself was an icon
of young Israeli male beauty). We may now be able to explain
the Israeli left's hypocritical and merciless conduct. People
who are engaged in the process of identification arrive eventually
at a complete detachment from any possible authentic understanding.
They cannot behave in an empathic manner because they cannot
put themselves in the place of the other; they simply lack any
sense of 'self-ness'. If we consider Kant's 'categorical imperative'
which implies that one should 'always act in such a way that
the maxim of one's action can be willed as a universal law',
we should agree that it is not applied in the case of the Sabra.
He simply lacks a lucid notion of self. If one is totally identified
with a remote collective icon, then the 'maxim of one's action'
is, in practice, the action of a collectively identified subject.
Thus, in the eyes of the Sabra his action is a form of 'universal
law'. In other words, the Sabra has no ethical sense, not to
mention realisation of universalism. This revelation might explain
the fact that within the Israeli political world, it was Menachem
Begin, the diaspora Jew, who initiated the peace process with
the Arab world. It may also be the reason that it is Shimon Peres,
the other diaspora Jew, who is still engaged in a process he
mistakenly regards as a peace process.
The case of radical feminists
is similar. The astonishing labelling of the entire male gender
as rapists can only be understood in terms of a severely troubled
ethical sense. More than often we come across a groundless story
of a man who is blamed for sexual harassment. I am not trying
to argue that sexual harassment doesn't exist; I am simply trying
to illuminate the conditions that make such ungrounded accusations
possible. I am trying to expose the structure of collective victimisation.
I would argue that collective victimisation results from a surrender
to the process of identification, a surrender which leads to
an absence of empathic and moral sense.
Marginal politics that occasionally presents itself as the expression
of the oppressed margin is, in fact, engaged in the robbery of
the marginal subject's notion of the self. Marginal politics
is in practice specialising in robbing its followers of their
most basic human qualities. Zionism, being a radical form of
marginal politics, should be seen as an anti-humanistic movement.
This may explain the Zionist conduct: past, present and future.
But then, we cannot really
blame the marginal subject. The Sabra murderer isn't really an
authentic subject; it isn't him who kills, it is the 'identity',
the caricatured identity, he is destined to bring to life. The
separatist lesbian who wants men out of the world doesn't really
express her own wish; that separatist isn't really her, but rather
a collective singular identity she adopts, an identity that exists
merely in a platonic ideological realm.
Conclusion
We should leave the old binary
left/right behind us. What matters is not whether one is in the
right camp, how good one is at producing lefty arguments, nor
the content of one's political outlook. What matters is one's
strategy of justification. Marginal politics is wrong whether
it appears on the right or on the left. Marginal politics is
a call against humanity. It is a call against the multiplicity
of the human landscape. It is a rejection of the idea of being
amongst others. It is about erecting walls and building ghettos,
whether those ghettos are made of bricks and mortar, concrete
or simply cultural boundaries.
Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the
Israeli military. He is the author of the new novel A
Guide to the Perplexed . Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished
jazz saxophonists in Europe. His recent CD, Exile,
was named the year's best jazz CD by the BBC. He now lives in
London and can be reached at: atz@onetel.net.uk
|