Those With Privilege Have the Greater Responsibility

For the past forty eight hours, I have been monitoring social media with growing concern and disgust. There are various aspects to this concern and I will in this post not go into the historical/political/ideological debates about the wrong and rights of Zionism and Israel but focus on the issues that have been raised in the past couple of days. Gilad Atzmon has been on a book tour for his book, The Wandering Who, in America.

Now I think a full disclosure is merited. I have some personal investment here as I was labelled as "anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer" a few months ago, simply for reading the author I am about discuss here. As a brown woman, without an EU citizenship, and living in Europe, I find threats by the Zionist lobby to denounce me as anti-Semite (the holy cow of the western world) more than a little disturbing; these have potentially serious social, political and professional consequences, especially as I have little recourse or opportunity for self-defense.. My crime, or perhaps the better Biblical word is sin, some months ago, was (in case you are wondering) simply to keep an open mind while reading Gilad Atzmon's book (and reviewing it). Also, an aggravating factor may have been that I supported the principles of freedom of speech to be applied regarding the author and the book (In simpler words: disagree with it if you wish, but damn well read it first!)

The hate mail and threats I received from the Zionist lobby for simply reading Atzmon's book were hateful and threatening enough for me to perhaps naively assume that, in contrast, those who actually support Atzmon would perhaps have a comparatively humanist attitude towards the Palestinians.

Sadly I am beginning to think that I was wrong.

As Atzmon has been on a book tour in US, the public Zionist opposition to him has grown. He has been accused of the same sins that I listed above: anti-Semite, Nazi sympathizer (or outright Nazi) and Holocaust denier. These are the same three labels that used and abused in most of western Europe and north America to shut down debate about Israel and any critique of its policies. I do believe that these labels and intimidating tactics need to be unbundled, critiqued and questioned so that they are not abused and misused.  This is especially the case for those who choose to take an anti-Zionist stance as they are most vulnerable to the subtle but devastating forms of censorship that 'the enlightened West' chooses to practice. Moreover, this same censorship takes on an overt and explicitly threatening form when those critiquing Israel are often framed as 'the enemy' based on the fallacious reasoning and attribution of race, ethnicity, and religion.

This final category is also often composed people with precarious situations who choose for moral or ideological reasons to take a stance that is unacceptable and very risky. They choose to go against western political orthodoxy on Israel despite explicit and clear personal risks.

Here I use myself as an example: as a brown woman who is not a citizen of any western nation, my position is precarious at best in the western world.  Regardless of the hyperbole put out by western governments, I am here at the indulgence of the countries where I choose to live: regardless of my professional independence, my economic status, educational achievements, I am susceptible to legal and social forces. So for example, the risk that the my host state can choose to expel me (or worse) is ever present. In recent times, and given the European Union's lack of willingness to abide agreements made with large corporations (far more powerful than I shall ever be), or indeed apply its own avowed principles of human and civil rights as well as criminal laws in any equal fashion, merely adds to my vulnerability.

Add to this, the false smear by extremely powerful (economically and politically) Zionist lobbyists who label me "anti-Semite, Holocaust-denier, and Nazi/Nazi-sympathizer for simply reading a book, and suddenly the price I have to pay for expressing my opinions and stances is a LOT higher than the average European (or indeed an Israeli such Atzmon) anti-Zionist. Very simply, everything from my visa to live Europe, my ability of hold my job, my (already meagre) ability to publish and basic civic freedoms, are threatened. Let us be very honest, a society that can keep Atzmon's voice out of the mainstream simply because of the accusation of anti-Semitic is not likely to be tolerant of a brown woman like me who is smeared - regardless of truth - of the same.  My point is simple: it is a higher risk for any non-western, non-white, and non-Judeo-Christian person to be pronouncing ANY opinion on Zionism or Israel!!!!

And perhaps this is what bothers me about the way reactions to Gilad Atzmon's book have been framed by his supporters. Yes, the Electronic Intifada has distanced themselves from the book and the author. We can debate the right and wrong of that...and don't get me wrong, I believe that there is a much needed debate to be had there.  However, what is unacceptable is the labelling of Electronic Intifada as somehow Zionist apologists or sympathizers by Atzmon's supporters, especially when those same supporters are well ensconced in positions of relative power in western countries (thus with relatively greater narrative/economic/political power than those they are critiquing and labelling).

The recent revelation of New York Police Department's records of spying on the city's Muslim communities shows the risks and pressures of taking ideological or political stances that oppose the mainstream US political agendas even by those of American citizenship and descent.  And let us make no mistake, even a less than overtly effusive support of Israel is seen as treason and terrorism in the much of western popular narrative. And yet these aspects have been overlooked by Atzmon's increasingly strident supporters. This makes their gratuitous accusations of collusion and/or collaboration aimed at Palestinian-Americans and Arab-Americans particularly sickening: they never need to pay the price of dissent as they enjoy every privilege conferred by race, ethnicity and religion.

The fact still remains that Palestinians and their non-white (and non-Judeo-Christian) supporters, walk a very fine line in western popular (and often the ever-shifting legal) spaces. They must prove their 'non-terrorist attitudes' (even if they are second and third generation citizens) even as many self-righteous western anti-Zionists insist that they take as radical and explicit (and as I have stated earlier, an oddly non-nuanced) stance as Gilad Atzmon. These are communities and people already suffering,  afraid and with good reasons, based on their characterisation as somehow anti-west and 'Islamist' simply for holding non-Zionist views. They already walk a very fine line in an rabidly pro-Israel environment that attempts, and mostly with great success, to smear and destroy any voice to contrary, while further running the risk of Islamophobic accusations. Yet I have watched, in the past few days, the sickening imperialist-tinged spectacle of the privileged western white Judeo-Christians men (and yes, on social media, these seem to primarily men) who support Atzmon insisting that these marginalised communities prove their anti-Zionism. Even more troubling is that the standard for anti-Zionism that is 'acceptable' to those demanding such evidence has been set not by the communities or people with personal stake in Palestine but by those who are collectively and historically aligned to the oppressive powers.  It is as if southern white Christian communities were to set  the standards of 'blackness' for African-Americans!

To be perfectly clear how the above is applied in the current situation: these strident Atzmon supporters insist that Palestinians/Arabs/Muslim/brown people live up to mythical ideological standards that they set for them. A sickening aspect here: Atzmon is seen as the prophetic voice who some how speaks for and about the Israel/Palestine situation. And yet his supporters replicate older colonialist ideals where the white man speaks for the native regardless of the native voice.

Furthermore, these avid Atzmon's supporters seem to ignore that the Palestinians (including Electronic Intifada and those who signed its letter) occupy a far more precarious space than most of those who insist they take certain stances. For Atzmon supporters who have secure privilege and safety in the West and risk very little (by dint of religion, race and ethnicity)  to insist that more at-risk communities match up to the standards they set is sick at the worst, and neo-imperialist at best.

Third, let us be clear about one thing: Palestine's liberation is NOT about the West's' guilt or ability or will. In the past five hundred years, western nations have inflicted enough damage around the world not only with various colonial enterprises but because of the very well-intentioned 'white man's burden.'  Whatever the result of the Palestinian struggle, let us be clear about one thing: the "west" shall have no or little say in the process or results.  The global balance of power has already begun shifting and the new wave of postcolonialist change has already hit much of the former excolonies; western military and politico-economic might is fading, and fast.  This means that 'allies' for the Palestinians need to know their place - our space is to support the ideas of freedom and equality till the best of our ability and extent of our ideology. We neither set the agenda for Palestinian freedom (that would be supremely paternalist!) nor do we set the standards for Palestinians to determine their means and ways of dissent!

Finally, it is NOT acceptable for an Israeli (former Zionist or not) OR indeed his European Palestine sympathizers to decide who is acceptably pro-Palestinian.  So by all means critique how Jewish anti-Zionists act (which Atzmon does) or how various western liberals behave, but it is not up to the former and current colonizers or those aligned institutionally as enablers (however personally dissenting) to determine the scope and range of Palestinian dissent, either in the territories or abroad.

Here I want to be clear: Atzmon writes about the Zionist project, its sympathizers and its proponents. His opinion adds to the debate, regardless of the stance one takes. However, when his supporters start to run down Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims or other historic stakeholders for their apparent Zionist sympathies, they cross an ideological/narratological/political line. I draw a parallel to another anti-colonial movement, the one in India: white Europeans were welcome to support our struggle; however at no time were they the leaders of our struggle and they did not decide the steps or goals of the movement.  Regardless of their participation, the independence struggle was ours alone! The same rule stands for Palestine: there may be allies all over the globe (including in other parts of Middle East and North Africa) but these are not the same as the actual stakeholders.

Here it is also worth reminding many of Atzmon supporters who have been taking an increasingly colonialist attitude even as they profess otherwise: an ally - especially when a dissident member of the oppressor - is NOT one of the oppressed. Regardless of the passion and intensity they may feel for the colonized, they speak from a position of privilege unavailable to the oppressed. This also means they have no right or space to stand in judgement to the many varieties of dissidence regarding Palestine amongst the stakeholders. Just as an Englishman had no right to determine who the Indian 'nationalists' were during the Independence struggle, no European 'pro-Palestinian' has the right to speak for Palestine.

How does this translate to the social media kerkuffle? Well here is a note to Atzmon's supporters (and others who profess to be anti-Zionists or pro-Palestinians): By all means support anti-Zionists and be anti-Zionism, but not at the cost of demeaning Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians in the 'west' who risk a hell of a lot more for a simple act of dissent than you - with your historic privileges - can ever imagine. Most importantly, recognise that you are in no position to impose your 'standards' of dissent on Palestinians, either at home or abroad (this means it is not your call how political groups even those made up of second and third generation Arab or Palestinians in the 'west' choose to follow their struggle).

If Atzmon supporters can't manage this tiny and basic act of anti-imperialist solidarity, I am afraid he would have failed in his apparent mission that he so passionately argued in his book. 

Arab Spring: Shifting Sands, Convulsing History

During the Egypt uprising, one reporter after another repeated the same mantra: the barrier of fear had been broken. And yet, once Mubarak stepped down and the media eye moved elsewhere, that mantra has not been heard nearly as often.

However in the month since Mubarak's downfall, there is ample evidence that the barrier of fear has indeed been broken. Along with that loss of fear, other walls have come tumbling down: of shame, false pride, hypocrisy: as Egyptians stormed the offices of secret police, people re-lived their torture, keen to explain and share.  They stepped inside torture devices to demonstrate the pain and humiliation they had experienced.  Men who had been raped as part of the ritual shaming by secret police spoke of their ordeals, often with heart-breaking humour mingled with awe-inspiring strength.  Young women detained, sexually assaulted and tortured by the Egyptian army have recorded and publicized their testimony in the past month, a cultural shift that is nearly cataclysmic in its symbolic and narrative worth: the shame is not of the victims but of the torturers who thought that rape and sexual assault can brand women as whores!  This is a courage of no small order!

The barrier of fear has also been broken in other parts of the region: Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, even the brutally oppressive Saudi Arabia and Syria are seeing unrest by ordinary people with extraordinary courage. The penalty for demanding basic human dignity by these young protesters is the use of tear gas, nerve gas, and even live ammunition at the demonstrations.  Moreover, the regimes are institutionally well-entrenched, identifying the key protesters and leaders, hunting them down, arresting, torturing and killing them beyond the eyes of the cameras.  That makes even the reporting of these protests and human rights abuses by the regimes acts of courage that few of us can begin to imagine.

As an aside, and once again, it is important to point to the involvement of women in these movements. And no, none of them fit the western feminist paradigms although they do echo many of the earlier (pre-colonial) traditions of women warriors and leaders in the region itself.  They are indicators that  it is time for new paradigms, and not only for nonwhite, non-western feminisms!

New paradigms are needed not only for feminism, but also for definitions of statehood, political franchise, strategic relations, political and cultural narratives.  We are in the midst of historic times where none of the old models and certainties can hold.

So what next?

It is obvious that the Arab Spring is not about to come to a standstill.  Despite media warnings and ponderous, well-paid analysts from big name think-tanks, these movements do not look to be dying down. Yes, Bahrain is being brutally crushed by a combination of sectarian political tactics, Saudi and GCC troops, and the regime's own mercenaries from Sunni majority countries. Yes, Libya has gone into armed conflict and international (some would call it western as if the UNSC resolutions and Gaddafi's killings of civilians never happened) intervention. Yes, Saudi and Syria appear to be brutally suppressing their own uprisings.  And yes, Yemen at the time of writing this has lived through a Bloody Friday and moving towards a coup or regime change (only time will tell).

Yet none of the events unfolding fit the currently existing theoretical and political models: Hamas and PL both cracked down on the youth demanding a united Palestinian front. Syrians are out in their thousands to demand change even as Vogue writes glowing articles about the dictator's "democratic" home and fashion plate wife (Hang on to that issue: it will be the equivalent of a praise piece for Marie Antoinette for our times; a true historic artefact!)  Morocco's king seems to be trying to outrun the breezes of Arab spring while Oman seems to be veering madly between reform and deep regime freeze.  Saudi kingdom has once again tried to buy off its population, a measure that seems almost sure to fail.

However, despite the specificities of history, culture and circumstance, the region is tied by a crucial commonality: the fear of regimes seems to have melted. The youth - often educated, disenfranchised, yet politically focussed, are stepping up to demand all the same privileges many in the western world take for granted: security, rule of law, a voice in their own lives and future, opportunity and human dignity.

Of course, many are facing apparently unsurmountable difficulties: the regimes are heavily armed by western weapons, often supported politically and economically by western powers.  Many have deep financial links with the "new global elite" who have little interest in welfare or even fate of the common people. Moreover, for decades, financial and geo-strategic interests have generally trumped human rights. That - I have said before - has been a short-sighted strategy especially on part of the western nations who at least talk of human rights. It is understandably a product of centuries of colonial thinking on part of Europe and by extension the US (and in a limited way, Russia).  Now, with the first breeze of Arab Spring, the lacunae in that policy lie exposed.

There is no stopping the change occurring in the region. Although there may be setbacks, brutal crackdowns, even temporary freezes in the uprisings, we stand at the beginning of a long process of historic change. Most importantly, none of it is really controllable by foreign powers, regardless of their financial, political and military interests. Just as Egypt and Tunisia threw off their dictators by themselves, and are continuing to stumble and struggle on the path to political growth on their own, the rest of the countries shall do the same.

An intervention - as in Libya - may be of temporary help but it is necessary to note that even the opposition council there has insisted that they be allowed to make the change for themselves. This is a key factor to keep in mind: assistance will be welcome (as has been the case in Libya) but the old colonialist paradigm of "saving people from themselves" is a long buried ideal.

It is also worth noting that it is not only western states who are unable to grasp, manage and react to these historic shifts. As the UN resolution on Libya demonstrated, India and Brazil are too tied their own postcolonial histories to be able to see into the future.  Russia and China have also reverted to knee-jerk "west vs rest" divisions, driven of course by their own business and political interests, although these seem shortsighted.

Unfortunately, in not too far future, all nations will have to choose whether their strategic goals match the new realities emerging in the region.  This means emerging powers like Brazil and India will need to decide whether an instinctive anti-western, postcolonial reaction still holds strategic value, or should they attempt to bring their decisions in line with the emerging realities of the region.  Both will have to decide whether they want to play postcolonial victims or take their rightful place in the future as political and economic powerhouses, especially as the latter comes with great responsibility.

As Libya shows, international lines are increasingly blurred and the only real way out is to actually LISTEN to the people: this is a lesson not only for the dictators in the region but also the international community that has long listened to dictators, tyrants and tottering monarchies instead of the people.

In the long term, these convulsions of history are unescapable. They will continue - not on media schedules and not for the next few weeks - but into the next couple of decades as historic changes do!  At the end, those who put short term interests over long term paradigm shifts will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

What the international community needs to do is to find a fragment of the courage displayed by the common people of the region and just learn to let go of old prejudices and paradigms.  It is a brave new world coming our way and while those in the region must live through the convulsions of history at great cost to themselves, the least the rest of us can do is to face them and the changing reality with new models of culture, power, and narratives.

Skeletons in the Closet: How Many More?

When the Roman Polanski story broke, I pretty much ignored it: A paedophile, albeit a very successful and famous one, was finally brought to book and about time. Then the media circus started, led by Polanski's equally or more successful and famous friends who insisted that "genius" was beyond mortal reaches of the law; that he had "suffered" already by losing his wife to a grisly murder and his mother to the Holocaust; that sex with a child was consensual because she hadn't fought; that he had paid for his mistakes; that too much time had passed (why didn't that apply to Nazi war criminals?). There are many aspects to this case that are ethically disturbing and politically dubious, and although I can't possibly consider all aspects, I am upset enough by the case to pitch in my two bits:

One of Polanski's passionate defenders is Bernard-Henri Levy.  That in itself should indicate some of the historico-political context of this case, not in the least the historical European unease and religious-racial ideological postures surrounding the Polanski saga:  Levy has been also one of the cheerleaders for indiscriminate bombing of Gaza and Lebanon. It does appear that for Levy, the Holocaust provides a perpetual "get out of jail, free" card for all moral and ethical misconduct, as long as the perpetrator can invoke some personal suffering at the hands of the Nazis.

Of course, much of Europe bears the guilt for the Holocaust like its own perpetual cross, obsessing on that single event in history and ignoring/erasing its guilt regarding all other genocides: never mind the killings Europeans did in Africa, Asia and Latin America; it is the fact the Nazis killed fellow Europeans that really feeds this racist morally-devoid cross-bearing.  And just as the Holocaust provides the over-arching narrative on Israel-Palestine, privileging the destruction of the European Jewry (who "suffered") over the nameless Palestinians who were expelled, raped, incarcerated, killed, and still continue to "suffer" their torment,  Polanski's individual experience of the Holocaust privileges his suffering over that of the children he has molested, abused, raped. And yes, lets not forget that this appears not to be an isolated case, as the "genius" director has had little compulsion in flaunting (possibly) legal but ethically disturbing sex with other underage individuals: Natassja Kinski, for example, was 15 to Polanski's 45-plus at the time of their liason but his defenders argue that in France, Kinski was over the age of consent, never mind the fact that a 45 year old man chasing adolescents qualifies as a predator and paedophile in all functional moral and ethical universes.

But there is another disturbing aspect to the rich and famous coming to Polanski's defense.  Levy - not surprisingly - was quick off the mark, starting a petition for Polanski's release and co-signed by many of his literary and artistic luminati mates. The list reads like a veritable who's-who of a certain generation: Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Isabelle Adjani, Diane von Fustenberg. Many on the list are my childhood heroes: people I admired in magazine photos as a child, read as an adolescent, desperately imitated in my early experiments with writing.

In case of Rushdie and Kundera, they are still my all-time favourite writers, whose incisive minds and luminous prose (to quote Rushdie himself) I admire and to which I aspire.  In case of von Fustenberg, I adored her dresses as a little kid in the 70s and seem to have acquired a wardrobe full as an adult - even today, a DvF is my ultimate confidence-booster, personal armour, capable of putting a smile on my face even on the worst of days. These aren't just dresses: they are childish dreams spun out of multicolour silk.

Another parallel petition unites cinema and art stars ranging from Martin Scorcese, Bernardo Bertolucci, Paul Auster, Jeremy Irons, Harrison Ford,Debra Winger, and of course that other glowing example of sexual predation: Woody Allen. Can I ever watch those well loved films of my childhood again without thinking of the potential depravity of its creator?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariel-gonzalez/a-child-rapist-is-not-a-p_b_310624.html

Of course, take away the tag of being petitions in defense of Polanski, and signatories row also reads like a guest list: if you were to throw an authentic retro Studio 54 bash, pretty much all of the people on those petitions would need to be invited. Including of course Polanski himself!

And that's the giveaway: this is a bunch of friends protecting each other. Regardless of the money they make, the fame they have, the literary and artistics "genius" they possess, the influence they wield - these petition co-signers are no more than a bunch of frat boys protecting one of their own. Unfortunately, they are standing up not for a mate who got terribly drunk and trashed someone's garden on a rowdy Saturday night. These shining examples of nearly a half-century of art are closing ranks to protect a child-rapist!

As if all this were not stomach churning enough, the French polity has dug up dirt on Frederic Mitterand, the country's culture minister, who has been - along with Levy - one of Polanski's most impassioned defenders. Apparently monsieur minister has a taste for little boys! He not only has indulged his twisted desires by paying for sex with children in Thailand, but in a "literary-artistic" twist perhaps inspired by the great genius Polanski himself has also written about it in his 2005 memoirs.

I wonder if Mitterand also qualifies for the Polanski defense: that he is a "genius" and valuable to the arts; that he too has "suffered"; that if it wasn't violent - and it couldn't have been since he paid for it - the act must have been consensual;  that little Thai children seduced the poor old man; that he is too important to France to be brought to book?   Perhaps my own prejudices are showing but I find it quite revealing of a culture and its ethos that Mitterand's memoirs, published in 2005, raised no eyebrows. That an entire nation just accepted his self-confessed abuse of children as logical droit de seigneur of a privileged, wealthy, powerful white man over the poor, starving children of the third world!  Or perhaps it is another take on that old Holocaust/Empire/race card again: after all he was raping/paying for children "over there" and not abusing perfect little white French kids from nice families!

Having read through Mitterand's case, I am left wondering: how many more of Polanski's passionate defenders have indulged their paedophilic urges and gotten away with it?  Suddenly, the signatories on that petition list seem a lot more sinister. Are they just frat boys protecting one of their own, or are they also guilty of similar crimes?  How many more have raped children in their own lands or - with even greater impunity - in the third world?  How many more closets shall be spewing skeletons in the next few weeks?

Finally I am saddened - although perhaps not surprised - that so many of my childhood idols not only have feet of clay, but were perhaps never worthy of my admiration.

Never Again? Lets Not Kid Ourselves!

When I studied in the USA, I was constantly told that "never again" was the moral to live by. Holocaust studies, memorials, monuments, documentaries, novels, memoirs dominated and still dominate the Western marketplace and psyche. In that process what is lost is the genocide determinedly practised over 60 years by survivors of the Holocaust.

Like children of abusers and alcoholics, the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust have grown to refine and put into practice the very atrocities they suffered from and apparently fought against. And they have had their cheerleaders and enablers to continue their abuse, as is borne out by the most recent massacre in Gaza.

For the past week, I have been sickened by the hypocrisy and hubris displayed by Western politicians and press over the massacre in Gaza. Again and again, we are told that Hamas is to blame. That they "started" it by lobbing rockets at Israeli towns - which just for the record have killed all of FOURTEEN Israelis in the past SEVEN years. Compare that to Israel's record of killing over 5000 Palestinian civilians in the same period.

The same press and politicians care not to talk of overt acts of war practised by Israel in breach of all international law including:

1. Blockade of sea/land/air in Gaza
2. Collective punishment by denying basic amenities to civilian population whose only crime is to vote against Western wishes, and for the party that provides them the basic modicum of education, health-care, social services.
3. Assassination and kidnapping of elected leaders of government, which would be considered acts of war against any "sovereign" state.
4. Killing of civilians during the same acts of war.
5. Illegal incarceration of thousands of Palestinians with no trial or reason.

And that is not even going back to the simplest point: that Israel has behaved as a racist, imperialist power since its inception. And it flouts all international law with full support of its Western cheerleaders and paymasters who consider the Palestinians simply as Israel's unter-menschen, to be incarcerated, humiliated and killed with impunity. But since words no longer suffice, the picture below speaks loud and clear:



So yes, indeed, Hamas is to blame. As is Fatah. And the PFLP. And every Palestinian who dares to protest the genocide they are being subjected to, and thus challenges the logic of the superior race in the Holy Land!

Never again? Yeah sure, but not when its practised by the worthy heirs of the Nazis!