by Gilad Atzmon, April 18, 2010

It occurred to me recently that by juxtaposing Jewish stereotypes (those Jews seem to hate versus those Jewish ethnic campaigners try to promote) may throw some crucial light over issues to do with Jewish collective identity. It would also suggest to us how Jews might see themselves and even more importantly, it may also help us to grasp how they prefer to be seen.

It is rather obvious that some Jews are rather unhappy with Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock who they regard as ‘anti Semitic’. I get the impression that the prominent Zionist enthusiast and London Barrister Anthony Julius would like to see these cultural iconic characters diminished from popular discourse. On the other hand, the British Holocaust Education Trust (HET) already managed to plant Anne Frank within the British curriculum.

It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ traffickingseem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum. However, it is also obvious why the HET is so thrilled by Anne Frank. On the face of it, and for obvious reasons, Frank is there to convey an image of innocence. And indeed not a single moral system could ever justify the ordeal this young girl went through along with many others.

Yet, Anne Frank wasn’t exactly a literary genius. Her diary is not a valuable piece of literature. She wasn’t an exceptionally clever either. She was in fact a very ordinary girl and this is exactly her power within the post WWII Western cultural discourse. She was just an innocent average girl. In fact, the attempt to make Anne Frank into a cultural hero may be a genuine reflection of the Zionist inclination towards sameness. Frank mirrors the desperate Zionist attempt to prove to the world that ‘we the Jews’ are people like other people. Moreover, the success of Anne Frank’s Diary is there to suggest the West’s willingness to accept Jews as people amongst peoples.

Yet, once again, the Jewish discourse is caught in a limbo. Jewish people can never achieve their task. They can never be like ‘other people’ for no other people aim to be like other people. In fact, those who demand to be seen as equal must feel inherently and categorically different. Once again we face a repetition of the Jewish identity’s collective unresolved chasm between ‘who one claims to be’ and ‘what one happens to be.’

In his latest book Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius renews his attack on those whom he labels as ‘anti Semites’ for being anti Zionists. The problem with anti Zionism, says Julius, is that “it denies the Jews the right that it upholds for other comparable people, it adheres to the right of self determination except in the Jews’ case…. It affirms international law. Except in Israel’s case. It regards Jewish nationalism (i.e. Zionism) as uniquely pernicious, rather than merely another nationalism” (Trials of The Diaspora, Anthony Julius pg Xl, Oxford University Press). The cry for legitimacy and sameness in Julius’ text is pretty embarrassing,especially due to the fact that the Jewish ‘right of self determination’ is celebrated at the expense of someone else (the Palestinians). Zionism is uniquely pernicious at least for being devastatingly sinister to the indigenous population of the holy land. It is apparent in Julius’ text that the London barrister somehow prefers to evade engaging with the notion or the meaning of ethical thinking.

For Hasbara (propaganda) to win a debate and for Julius to win his argument, Jews have to prove that they are truly the same rather than demand to be seen as similar. Surely Julius must know that winning a moral argument is very different from winning a court case.

Presumably Julius is familiar enough with Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ that suggests that to behave ethically is to ‘act in such a way that the maxim of one’s actions can be willed as a universal law’. Julius may fail to grasp that ethnically cleansing the vast majority of the Palestinian population cannot be ‘willed as a universal law’. Locking millions in concentration camps such as Gaza is not exactly a maxim of profound ethical standing. Dropping white phosphorous on people hiding in a UN shelter doesn’t make the Jewish state look like every other state. In fact, it doesn’t make Jews look like other people either. WatchingJewish lobbies around the world push for a war against Iran doesn’t make Jews look like ordinary people. And this is something that even Anne Frank cannot change.

As much as Julius and others would like to remove some crucial stereotypes from our collective cultural discourse, they can actually expect the complete opposite. Fagin and Shylock are now more popular than ever before. Devastatingly enough, it is Fagin and Shylock who shed light over the Jewish state and its lobbies around the world. Fagin is neither alone nor is he an isolated fictional episode. The list of Zionist crimes is emerging so rapidly that it is almost impossible for us to keep up.

I am reluctant to suggest to Julius that his attempt is in vain. The world out there is turning rapidly against Israel, Jewish nationalism and Jewish supremacy. Removing Fagin, Shylock and TS Eliot won’t stop the word ‘Jew’ from being an adjective and a negative descriptive emblem. For that to change, or for Jews to be genuinely respected, self-reflection is of the essence. Instead of pointing out what is so wrong with the Goyim, Jews may want to consider looking in the mirror. I tried it once many years ago. I have never recovered. It transformed me into a profound self-hater.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/symbolic-identifiers-and-jewish-stereotypes-by-gilad-atzmon.html