Gilad Atzmon è un rinomato musicista, direttore dell'Orient House Ensemble, scrittore e commentatore politico. È nato e cresciuto in Israele, ma dal 1994, ha scelto la via dell'"esilio" in Inghilterra. Mary Rizzo di peacepalestine gli ha posto alcune domande in occasione dell'uscita del suo secondo romanzo, My One and Only Love e del suo nono disco, dal titolo MusiK. Il suo precedente album, Exile, vinse il premio di "album jazz dell'anno" della BBC.
Sabato 9 Aprile 2005
Gilad Atzmon: Non necessariamente. Credo che sia un libro molto diverso, eppure presenta un'altra forma di decostruzione dell'identità israeliana.
MR: Ritieni che la tua sia una scrittura politica?
GA: Non mi ritengo un essere politico, e quindi non si deve considerare politica né la mia musica né i miei scritti. Sono impegnato nel pensiero critico.
MR: Alcuni criticano quello che scrivi, dicendo che i tuoi personaggi maschili sono sessisti e i tuoi personaggi femminili piuttosto vuoti. Che ne pensi?
GA: Credo che questa affermazione sia fondata, semmai. I miei personaggi maschili mi sembrano individui abbastanza distrutti. Credo che ci sia una grande mancanza di comprensione tra i sessi. La trovo una cosa affascinante e stimolante. Per me, la sessualità femminile è l'ultima, esplosiva dimensione dell'aspirazione umana, è l'ultimo desiderio. Allo stesso tempo, si tratta dell'incarnazione della paura maschile. Sembra che gli uomini preferiscano morire in battaglia piuttosto che non farcela a letto.
MR: Nella tua scrittura, la maggior parte dei tuoi personaggi si impegna massicciamente in confessioni autobiografiche personali. Perché usi questa tecnica?
GA: Soprattutto perché cerco di prendere in giro questo tipo di ricerca. Credo che una grossa parte del potere ebraico si basi sulla trasformazione di una narrazione personale in una narrazione storica. Un giovane sionista di oggi risponderebbe a una sfida umanista raccontando la storia personale di suo nonno (Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.). Io mi impegno a smascherare il carattere fittizio della narrazione personale. La tua storia è come tu vuoi che sia. Non si tratta di una narrazione storica, e non è nemmeno la tua fiaba. Si tratta di una costruzione pura e semplice.
MR: L'identità e l'identificazione sono temi ricorrenti sia nei tuoi romanzi che nei tuoi saggi. Perché costituiscono un tema così centrale?
GA: L'identità domina il discorso 'intellettuale' del ventesimo secolo dopo la fine dell'ultima guerra. Viene presentata come l'autentica rivelazione del 'vero sé'. Io ridicolizzo questo concetto, e sostengo che la verità sia il contrario. La politica dell'identità semplicemente ci aliena da noi stessi. Dire che io sono un ebreo, un sionista, un gay, una lesbica, vuol dire identificarsi. Si tratta di una forma di autoalienazione. È molto diverso dal dire, io sono 'io', che è probabilmente la forma ultima di autentico autoriferimento. Allo stesso tempo, dire io sono io non è certo molto rivelatore. Si tratta in fondo di una specie di tautologia (è come dire, 'A' è 'A'). In breve, io sostengo che l'essenza della politica identitaria, cioè il presupposto che 'il personale sia politico', è uno scherzo intellettuale. Il personale è personale, qualunque cosa ciò possa significare. Quando il personale diventa politico, non è altro che personale.
MR: A volte dici che i critici dei grandi media tendono a censurare le voci che non diffondono la narrazione sionista accettata. Ma se prendiamo in considerazione il caso della "Passione di Cristo" di Mel Gibson, non è invece che stiano facendo, involontariamente o forse nemmeno involontariamente, una pubblicità gratuita a quel film? Personalmente, non credo che i suoi film avrebbero fatto tanti incassi senza l'aiuto dell'ADL [N.d.T.: la Anti-Defamation League, organizzazione sionista che concesse la sua massima onorificenza a Silvio Berlusconi nel 2003].
GA: Sono d'accordo, senz'altro. Credo che le organizzazioni ebraiche, come il popolo ebraico, siano molto abili nel vincere le piccole battaglie, ma sono ancora più abili nel perdere tutta la guerra. Sono assai abili nelle piccole manovre tattiche, ma perdono sempre la grande battaglia. Lo dimostra oltre ogni dubbio l'olocausto - proprio quando, all'epoca, gli ebrei avevano praticamente il controllo della finanza, della politica e della cultura dell'Europa centrale, la comunità ebraica europea fu sostanzialmente annientata. Ora che Israele minaccia l'intero Medio Oriente con la sua potenza nucleare, la popolazione d'Israele è composta prevalentemente da non ebrei. Detto in altre parole, non lo si può considerare uno stato ebraico. Proprio quando la comunità ebraica organizzata degli Stati Uniti ce l'ha fatta a dominare la politica di destra americana, il loro programma sionista viene smascherato, e sarà solo una questione di tempo prima che il popolo americano si rivolga contro i propri vicini ebrei. Diciamo tra parentesi che questa non è per nulla una buona notizia per i nostri fratelli palestinesi. Come puoi vedere, ci sono manovre tattiche impressionanti, ma una grave mancanza di comprensione del quadro generale.
MR: Esiste il rischio che un artista cerchi lo scandalo a causa della visibilità che gli dà - e tu stesso pensi di correre questo rischio? Insomma, l'opera rischia di essere oscurata dalla personalizzazione dell'artista e delle sue opinioni?
GA: Certamente, ne sono pienamente consapevole. Lascio decidere ai miei ascoltatori/lettori.
MR: Non ci sono molti scrittori-musicisti le cui creazioni abbiano una visione del mondo coerente. I pochissimi che mi vengono in mente sono Leonard Cohen e Nick Cave. Secondo te, è difficile dedicarsi a entrambe queste forme d'arte contemporaneamente, oppure si tratta della paura di fallire o della critica che comporta qualche altro blocco creativo?
GA: Intanto, il lavoro è tutt'altro che coerente, e ne sono felice. Cerco di restare coerente all'interno di uno specifico argomento. Se capisco bene quello che mi chiedi, ti riferisci qui all'attività artistica duale. Credo che ormai la mia scrittura e la mia musica siano complementari. E la cosa mi piace molto. Si stimolano a vicenda, ho due Gilad che crescono indipendentemente su di me, per ora sono amici tra di loro. Quando smetteranno di amarsi, saranno guai seri per me.MR: Esiste una diffusa tendenza tra gli autori nati in Israele a dedicarsi ai commentari politici, sembra più che tra autori di una diversa origine nazionale. Pensiamo a Yehoshua, aGrossman, a te. Perché pensi che sia così?
GA: Credo che la faccenda sia abbastanza semplice. L'esistenza israeliana è tragicamente intrecciata con una grave colpa. Essere israeliano vuol dire essere un razzista, un nazionalista e un colonialista. Quando sei un intellettuale israeliano, e immagino che Grossman lo sia (Yehoshua è semplicemente uno che pretende di esserlo), sei condannato a cercare di risolvere questa tensione.
MR: Alcuni dei tuoi critici dicono che sei un musicista eccezionale, e che dovresti semplicemente "stare zitto e suonare", come se Gilad Atzmon l'artista e Gilad Atzmon il commentatore fossero categorie distinte o entità separate. Cosa dici a proposito del tuo diritto di esprimere le tue opinioni, e il fatto che le tue opinioni ottengono un'eco particolare perché sei un artista?
GA: Questi critici si fanno sentire soprattutto all'interno di ghetti ebraici molto diversi tra di loro, o in Israele o postati in qualche Judeo-Cyber Shtetl. Queste persone chiaramente non riescono a capire che io sono un musicista jazz. Essendo quello che sono (ebrei segregati) non riescono a capire cosa vuol dire essere un musicista jazz. Essere un musicista jazz vuol dire essere un filosofo nel senso più radicale e tedesco. Vuol dire 'cercare la condizione della possibilità'. Vuol dire chiedersi cosa significhi il jazz, cosa significa l'arte, cosa significhi trovarsi nel mondo e cosa significhi Israele. A volte lo faccio con il saxofono infilato in bocca, altre volte lo faccio con il mio portatile schiacciato sotto le mie grosse dita.
MR: Hai notato se esiste una sovrapposizione tra i tuoi pubblici, cioè se quelli che apprezzano la tua musica sono aperti verso i tuoi altri sbocchi o viceversa? Oppure il genere di musica che componi è dedicato a un pubblico più ristretto?
GA: Non so in realtà, per quanto riguarda la mia musica, mi sembra che noi (l'Orient House Ensemble, OHE) siamo in continua crescita. Per quanto riguarda i miei romanzi, attiro alcuni nuovi lettori. Direi che quando si tratta di documenti scritti, esiste una piccolissima cerchia di lettori devoti. Credo soprattutto nell'impatto della cultura popolare.
MR: Non tanti musicisti hanno scritto a proposito d'Israele, e quando lo fanno il pubblico generale e i critici in genere non se ne accorgono. L'esempio che mi viene in mente è la canzone di Patti Smith su Rachel Corrie, "Peaceable Kingdom". Eppure, in tutte le recensioni che ho letto del tuo ultimo album, mentre non si dice in modo esplicito che le tue canzoni riguardano Israele, i critici sottolineano le tue idee politiche. Pensi che la tua musica renda l'idea da sola, oppure esistono idee preconcette sul tuo messaggio?
GA: In realtà penso che la maggior parte degli europei provi disgusto per i metodi espansionistici e razzisti di Israele, ma trovano difficile parlarne in maniera aperta. Credo che l'OHE, una band multietnica, aiuti ad esprimere questa voce. Facci caso, io utilizzo il palco per dire quello che penso d'Israele e della sua sorella minore (gli Stati Uniti).
MR: Nella brillante canzone, "Re-arranging the 20th Century" ("Risistemare il ventesimo secolo"), troviamo un miscuglio di standard, alcuni effetti sonori davvero sorprendenti e un denso arrangiamento. Cosa significa questa combinazione?
GA: Per me, 'Risistemare il ventesimo secolo' vuol dire, 'non è detto per niente che sia così'. Vuol dire puntare l'indice sulla narrazione dei vincitori angloamericani e chiedere, perché avete assassinato quasi un milione di civili tedeschi innocenti bombardando le città tedesche, mentre avreste chiaramente potuto porre fine alla guerra in due mesi colpendo i centri logistici e industriali della Germania? Perché avete invaso la Normandia nel giugno del 1944, era solo perché Stalin stava vincendo a Oriente? Perché non avete mai trovato il tempo di bombardare Auschwitz? Non è perché non volevate ammettere che sapevate della macchina industriale omicida tedesca, nel caso in cui vi foste trovati a concludere un armistizio con la Germania nazista… Perché avete scagliato una bomba atomica su Hiroshima e Nagasaki? Aveva per caso qualcosa a che fare con il fatto che Stalin (di nuovo lui) stava per interferire con i vostri progetti nell'area del Pacifico? Per me, "Risistemare il ventesimo secolo" vuol dire ammettere tutte queste domande, ammettere altre narrazioni molto diverse.
MR: Provi affinità per altri artisti, o ogni artista è un'isola a sé?
GA: Innanzitutto, io dirigo un ensemble in cui mi trovo circondato da ottimi musicisti, ma per rispondere alla tua domanda, la risposta è sì. Casomai, traggo una profonda ispirazione dall'età dell'oro del jazz, Parker, Dizzy, Miles, Coltrane. Furono artisti rivoluzionari, e il jazz dovrebbe essere così.
MR: Tu hai collaborato con alcuni musicisti molto importanti. Che tipo di collaborazione vuoi veramente stabilire, se lo vuoi stabilire?
GA: Non sono più un musicista di session. Voglio suonare la mia musica, e voglio contribuire con la mia voce alle persone che apprezzano la mia personale voce. Mi è piaciuto molto lavorare con Robert Wyatt. Un vero spirito artistico, genuinamente naturale, dedicato esclusivamente alla creazione della bellezza!
MR: Le parodie religiose che prendono in giro il cristianesimo sono spesso apprezzate dalle masse, "The Life of Brian" è l'esempio più evidente. Ma per qualche motivo, quando il "bersaglio" è il giudaismo, le si etichetta subito come antisemite. Cosa ne pensi di Dieudonné?
GA: Sai esattamente quello che penso dell'antisemitismo… In ogni caso, è difficile ricordare qualche presa in giro del giudaismo. Casomai, sono gli ebrei a essere ridicolizzati, di solito per la loro avidità e il loro vittimismo. Ma allora ci dovremmo chiedere, perché sono avidi. Io sostengo che la mancanza della nozione dell'Altro è il nucleo di questa identità problematica. È il nucleo della grave mancanza di un pensiero autenticamente etico.
MR: Quali libri hai letto recentemente?
GA: Il guardone - Alberto Moravia. Un autore scandaloso. Il secolo ebraico - Yuri Slezkine. Un libro importantissimo per chiunque voglia saperne di più sull'attuale fase di suprematismo ebraico.
MR: Sai quanto mi piace Mojo, in quel contesto, quali sono i dieci track di altri che metteresti nell'elenco dei più importanti per te?
GA: No, non posso, mi ci vorrebbero giorni, ma ti posso dire che Coltrane sarebbe lì, e anche Piazzola, Bach, Bird, Brahms, Robert Wyatt, forse i Beatles.
MR: La società in cui viviamo dipende in larga misura dai valori consumistici, che hanno aspetti positivi, ad esempio il facile accesso alla cultura per ampi settori della società, ma anche valori negativi, che culminano nella folle distruzione delle risorse del mondo per alimentare la nostra dipendenza dai combustibili. Nel mondo occidentale, sembra che il nostro stile di vita e l'acquisizione dell'ozio non siano negoziabili. Siamo tutti, chi più e chi meno, una parte del meccanismo. Dove dobbiamo segnare il limite? A che cosa dovremmo cominciare a rinunciare?
GA: Come probabilmente sai, ho intitolato il mio album musiK, sottolineando la 'K' maiuscola, per me è la K di musiK piuttosto che la 'c' di musica che sta per lo sforzo verso il bello, il sublime, l'estetico.
Mentre la K sta per la bellezza, la C simboleggia la commercializzazione angloamericana. Questa differenziazione introduce una linea categorica di demarcazione tra la 'Kultura' superiore e la bassa 'cultura' prodotta in serie. Detto questo, io sostengo che la Kultura debba essere distribuita in massa. Io distinguo tra la sublime filosofia di Immanuel Kant e l'inferiore filosofia di mercato presentata da quel c**one di Milton Friedman. Credo che ci stiamo preparando per la rivoluzione del 'no grazie'. Quando la gente dirà semplicemente, no grazie, non mi interessa comprare.
MR: Parliamo di cultura: la cultura e la politica formano una strana coppia, come il realismo sovietico intimamente legato al sistema egemonico al potere; oppure, il patrocinio di un sistema politico può permettere alla cultura di svilupparsi al più alto livello, se prendiamo per esempio Firenze durante il Rinascimento, quando l'arte era al servizio del potere. Funziona solo quando c'è un potere illuminato - e tale potere esiste, o è solo un mito?
GA: Questa è un'ottima domanda, e la risposta non può essere breve. Ho scritto molto in passato su questo argomento. Mentre in passato erano l'aristocrazia e la borghesia che sostenevano l'arte e gli artisti, nella società liberaldemocratica questo ruolo viene assunto dai politici. Quelli che finanziano gli artisti e i progetti artistici. Di conseguenza, gli artisti occidentali sono tutt'altro che una voce critica. L'altra fonte di sostegno è l'industria culturale, e anche qui non ci sono molto opportunità per una rivolta degli artisti. Io penso che il jazz sia l'unica forma possibile di voce critica. Semplicemente, ci serve molto poco per far notare la nostra arte.
MR: Esiste uno stretto rapporto tra religione e cultura, soprattutto nella storia europea e nel periodo classico dell'espansione araba, per citare i due eventi più noti a noi occidentali, e questo rapporto è sempre stato importante nel passato. Si tratta di un concetto superato dalla storia?
GA: Un'altra domanda interessante. Sai, non ci avevo mai passato, ma come sai, sono gli ebrei americani che controllano l'industria culturale occidentale… Mi sembra più che probabile che il motivo stia nel fatto che pochissimo contesto spirituale filtra nella nostra cultura di massa. Però, e ritorniamo al jazz, una gran parte della musica jazz era strettamente intrecciata al pensiero religioso. Oggi non è più così, però.
In fin dei conti, l'industria serve per accumulare denaro, e così l'industria culturale. Devono credere che il sedere di Madonna venda meglio di un'autentica rivelazione spirituale. Io credo che alla fine si vedrà che hanno torto, ma ci vorrà del tempo, fosse solo perché Madonna in effetti ha un sedere glorioso.
MR: Esiste un problema con il livello delle conoscenze nella cultura attuale? Ad esempio, nella maggior parte degli strati sociali, la gente sa chi è Don Chisciotte, ma non credo che molti di noi abbiano avuto occasione di leggere Cervantes. Il motivo è che probabilmente tutte le nazioni condividono un'idea provinciale della diffusione culturale, concentrandosi sui criteri linguistici locali. Come uomo di cultura, vedi una soluzione a questo, oppure ai nostri tempi è inevitabile, o forse addirittura un fatto positivo?
GA: Ancora di più, noi viviamo in un'immaginario di villaggio globale, che serve proprio per impedirci di allargare la nostra visione oltre l'orizzonte. Le nostre capacità critiche si stanno restringendo ogni secondo di più.
MR: Possiamo considerare la cultura una fuga dalla realtà o dagli avvenimenti? Possiamo considerarla in qualche modo come un alibi per l'indifferenza o l'inattività politica?
GA: L'arte, nella misura in cui l'arte è cultura, serve per suggerire una possibile realtà alternativa. Ma non ritengo che l'arte in quanto tale serva come alibi. Credo che la motivazione dietro l'indifferenza politica sia piuttosto evidente. Una volta che mi dici che ho il diritto di votare per il mio futuro, tanto vale smettere di interessarmi al mio futuro. Allo stesso modo, una volta che una donna ti dice che sei libero di sfidare le sue tendenze liberali, puoi perdere interesse nel farlo.
MR: Assieme ad altre cose, sei laureato in filosofia. In base ai tuoi studi, hai qualche opinione sull'assolutismo che va di moda ai nostri tempi, ad esempio la contrapposizione tra estremi quali internazionalismo contro unilateralismo, laicismo contro fondamentalismo, non-violenza contro il ricorso alla violenza nei conflitti internazionali?
GA: Non sono laureato in filosofia. Ho studiato per diventarlo, ma non sono mai arrivato al capolinea, la mia carriera musicale ha preso il primo posto. Per rispondere alla tua domanda, non ho nulla in contrario all'assolutismo o all'estremismo. Ho problemi invece con la modalità poco profonda di pensare. Ho un problema con il colonialismo angloamericano presentato come se avesse come obiettivo la liberazione del mondo arabo. Ho un problema con la certezza di essere nel giusto dei sionisti di sinistra. Ho un problema con il political correctness, con la gente che pretende di sapere cos'è giusto e cos'è sbagliato.
MR: In seguito ai fatti dell'11 settembre negli USA, l'islamofobia, o più in generale una diffidenza verso gli arabi, sembra essersi scatenata in Occidente. C'è una differenza con il modo in cui gli israeliani vedono gli arabi? Esiste un modo per combattere questa tendenza?
GA: Sono d'accordo, ci sono somiglianze sconvolgenti. Direi inoltre che gli americani sono riusciti a copiare ogni errore israeliano. Hanno copiato la strategia della destra israeliana, terrorizzando il proprio popolo con le possibili conseguenze del terrore. Guarda che non mi interessa salvare l'America. Voglio solo dire che l'America è attualmente l'unica superpotenza mondiale. Quindi l'unica forza in grado di abbatterla sono gli americani stessi. Devo dire che Bush e i suoi neocon sono le persone adatte per farlo. Hanno la mia benedizione.
MR: Pensi che il razzismo si fondi sull'ignoranza, che sia la conseguenza di un'attiva adesione a un'ideologia, o che magari si basi anche in parte su elementi oggettivi?
GA: Tanto per cominciare, gli esseri umani sono creature dotate di coscienza razziale, quindi la domanda è, che cosa fanno con questa coscienza. Dobbiamo ammettere che le persone hanno aspetti diversi, e forse hanno alcune qualità fisiche e intellettuali diverse. Il razzismo sorge quando privilegiamo una razza su un'altra. Questo non ha necessariamente a che vedere con l'ignoranza; di solito, è la conseguenza di un punto di vista suprematista. Qualcosa che è stato a lungo covato nel pensiero talmudica. Quindi, quando diventi uno studioso del Talmud, devi essere un razzista. Non ha nulla a che vedere con l'ignoranza, casomai è il contrario. Nel giudaismo, il razzismo è oggetto di educazione.
MR: In Italia, c'è la tendenza nei media a presentare "arabi buoni"come commentatori, che dedicano gran parte del loro tempo a criticare apertamente l'Islam, in genere senza venire contestati, perché li si ritiene dei moderati. Allo stesso tempo, "ebreo buono" è un termine spesso adoperato dai sostenitori d'Israele e significa una persona che critica Israele, ma non tocca il tema del giudaismo, anzi evita a tutti i costi di parlare di religione. Perché pensi che sia così? A che serve?
GA: Credo che sia ovvio, si tratta del lancio di una moderna crociata. Ma per essere più precisi, anch'io cerco di evitare il tema del giudaismo. Per me, la questione è l'identità ebraica, e non il giudaismo. Io conosco molti testi che mettono in discussione codice suprematista giudaico e talmudica, ma per me il male moderno sembra incarnarsi nel sionismo laico.
MR: Tu a volte hai criticato le persone che si definiscono ebrei laici, che in quanto tali criticano il sionismo. Ma mi sembra evidente che sono spesso molto efficaci nel diffondere il messaggio che è possibile per gli ebrei combattere il sionismo, a coloro che ritengono che tutti gli ebrei siano ciecamente fedeli a Israele. Perché trovi questa combinazione problematica, visto che è efficace?
GA: Riassumo quello che ne penso in due frasi: 1. Se il sionismo è disumano, allora l'argomento contro il sionismo dovrebbe stare in piedi da solo, insomma l'appartenenza etnica o sociale, la fede religiosa o le preferenze sessuali di chi scrive sono del tutto irrilevanti. 2. Mettere in discussione il sionismo in quanto ebreo vuol dire cedere all'idea sionista che l'ebraicità sia il predicato più importante associato al popolo ebraico. Quindi, mentre mi rendo conto che alcuni di questi attacchi possono essere efficaci, dall'altra possono essere altrettanto utili alla causa sionista. Presentano il mondo ebraico come una società plurale e polarizzata. Questo si adatta molto bene alla strategia sionista. Casomai, fornisce una corazza intellettuale a Israele e al sionismo. Siccome trovo gli argomenti espressi in nome del laicismo ebraico vuoti, provo un urgente bisogno di decostruirli. Devo anche dire che apprezzo le obiezioni al sionismo in nome del giudaismo. Sostengo autenticamente i Neturei Karta e ogni altra forma di obiezioni religiosa ebraica al sionismo.
MR: Quelli che chiamano se stessi ebrei atei presentano un altro problema, perché se Dio non esiste, allora la premessa dietro uno stato ebraico è nulla. Cos'è allora che porta tanti ebrei atei a sostenere uno stato ebraico, se questo presenta un grosso problema filosofico che è in se stesso un ossimoro?
GA: E' vero, infatti il sionismo alle origini era un marginale movimento laico. Suggeriva l'interpretazione della Bibbia come se fosse un documento legale (un registro catastale) anziché un testo spirituale. In pratica, si tratta di una forma di evangelismo ebraico che è molto più pericoloso di qualunque scuola religiosa.
MR: Perché pensi che gli Stati Uniti diano tanto sostegno a Israele? Andrà avanti per molto?
GA: Il sionismo si è presentato al colonialismo occidentale come un servitore. Prima si trattava dell'impero britannico, ora sono gli Stati Uniti. Ogni volta che ci sono conflitti nella regione, gli americani sono coinvolti. Ma adesso siamo di fronte a un cambiamento di grande portata: non è più Israele che serve all'America, quanto piuttosto il contrario, gli americani stanno combattendo per abbattere le ultime isole di resistenza araba contro il sionismo. Immagino che sia una questione di tempo, prima che il popolo americano si renderà conto di dove lo stanno portando i sionisti.
MR: Il Secolo Americano che stiamo vivendo finirà? Oppure è la stessa natura unilaterale della Pax Americana a impedire che qualunque altra area del pianeta si esprima nel suo pieno sviluppo?
GA: Finirà, probabilmente con la fine dell'America. Pensa che già sotto diversi aspetti, l'America sta attraversando una fase di disintegrazione: sul piano legale, sociale e diplomatico.
MR: Perché i gruppi ebraici moderati non criticano Israele?
GA: Perché non esistono gruppi ebraici moderati. L'ebraicità è un'identità radicale che si basa sull'elezione e sul suprematismo.
MR: Operi una distinzione tra Israele e gli israeliani?
GA: Non proprio, gli israeliani sono persone che colonizzano la Palestina, Israele è il concetto della colonizzazione della Palestina.
MR: Se una persona è malata, occorre somministrarle una medicina perché possa agire con la massima efficienza. Facciamo un'analogia con le società. Che medicina prescriveresti per Israele?
GA: NESSUNA, Israele non ha il diritto di esistere, è la più grande minaccia alla pace mondiale. Israele dovrebbe diventare uno stato dei suoi cittadini, ma quando questo succederà, si chiamerà Palestina.
MR: E per gli USA?
GA: Nessuna medicina, l'America sta facendo tutte le cose si giusta. Si sta distruggendo da sola in modo efficiente. Credo che l'America dovrebbe smetterla di mettere al primo posto gli interessi degli israeliani, una specie di 'Jewnited state of Jewmerica', è meglio iniziare a essere gli Stati Uniti del popolo americano, ma forse ci vorrà del tempo.
MR: Per la Palestina?
GA: La Palestina starà bene, il tempo lavora a favore del popolo palestinese.
MR: Nel prossimo futuro, è possibile che Israele entri nell'Unione Europea, mentre la Russia non viene praticamente presa in considerazione. Questa adesione potrebbe esasperare l'attuale impeto ideologico dell'Alleanza Atlantica, vista la maniera in cui le nuove nazioni hanno ottenuto ingresso automatico nella NATO, oppure potrebbe aprire la strada a un orientamento mediterraneo?
GA: Non sono un esperto delle questioni dell'Unione europea, ma non vedo Israele che entra a far parte dell'UE nel prossimo milione di anni.
MR: Segui la politica israeliana?
GA: Non da vicino, comunque, non più.
MR: Pensi che il sionismo sia un movimento storico che un giorno smetterà di essere significativo, come la maggior parte di altri dinamici movimenti nazionalisti come il garibaldismo, il giacobinismo e il nazismo, che furono legati a uno specifico periodo storico, oppure si tratta di un'ideologia permanente che si sa adattare alle situazioni storiche, e che si può applicare ad altre realtà, oltre al movimento nazionalista israeliano per uno stato ebraico in Palestina?
GA: Domanda interessante. Infatti, il sionismo era già morto tra i tardi anni Settanta e l'inizio della seconda Intifada. Il sionismo è una forma di negazione, e finché gli ebrei possono trovarsi alle prese con un conflitto, si alimenterà il sionismo.
MR: Credi che esistono diversi tipi di sionismo, come il Sionismo culturale di Buber, o il sionismo "leggero" praticato da Peace Now? Esiste qualche tipo con caratteristiche positive?
GA: No, le differenze sono marginali e trascurabili. Il sionismo è la credenza che gli ebrei abbiano diritto a un focolare nazionale in Palestina. Questo concetto è inaccettabile. Primo, perché gli ebrei non sono una nazione. Una nazione è un popolo che già vive in una terra. E secondo, perché la Palestina non è libera.
E poi il sionismo è razzista. È lo stato degli ebrei, ma l'ebraicità è un definizione razziale. È un fondamentalismo religioso, con la trasformazione della Bibbia in un documento legale (vedere sopra). Inoltre è colonialista, è un sistema legale che favorisce gli stranieri rispetto agli indigeni. Tutte le forme di sionismo ricadono in queste categorie. Sono inaccettabili.
MR: Conosco molte persone che ritengono che il tuo atteggiamento verso Israele sia completamente sbagliato, anche se ritengono che i tuoi fini siano accettabili. Insistono che il riconoscimento dei delitti d'Israele costituisce un lungo processo di presa di coscienza, e che tutti i progressi che hanno fatto nell'adottare questo punto di vista, che va contro la maggior parte delle cose che sono state insegnate loro e che credono in buona fede, li hanno fatto assumendo un approccio non accusatorio e non aggressivo. Che ne pensi?
GA: Non mi interessa parlare agli israeliani o agli ebrei. Sto parlando degli israeliani, d'Israele e della 'identità ebraica'. C'è una bella differenza. Inoltre, non sono un politico e non ho scopi politici. Voglio dire quello che ho da dire, e il fatto che le mie opinioni rendano estremamente infelici alcune persone mi fa sentire molto bene.
MR: Che cos'è che temono gli israeliani, e cosa impedisce loro di accettare una coesistenza pacifica con la popolazione indigena? Esiste qualche giustificazione del loro stato mentale?
GA: Certamente, la pacificità è un concetto decisamente non ebraico. Va da sé, la storia lo dimostra oltre ogni dubbio. Guarda la pacifica Europa dopo la Seconda guerra mondiale, guarda invece cos'è successo al Medio Oriente appena i sionisti hanno deciso di emigrarvi in massa, guarda gli Stati Uniti di oggi che servono gli interessi sionisti. Quando i politici sionisti parlano di pace, dicono: "la pace ci piace, ma vogliamo definirne i termini e le condizioni", questo dimostra quanto lontano sia l'israeliano da qualunque concetto di riconciliazione. La pace vuol dire impegnarsi in un rapporto empatico con l'Altro, e questo non potrà mai avvenire finché ci si percepisce come eletti. Per gli israeliani, la pace è una specie di baratto, è la materializzazione dell'empatia, vivere in pace vuol dire godere di diverse forme di sicurezza.
MR: Recentemente, molti hanno cominciato a investigare la questione della Negazione ebraica come parte intrinseca della mancanza di progresso nel riconoscere le sofferenze dei palestinesi. Altri si sono concentrati sulla mentalità vittimistica che si esprime in maniera macroscopica con l'enfasi sull'Olocausto. Nei tuoi romanzi e saggi, tu metti a fuoco entrambi. Si tratta di una situazione che si può modificare in qualche modo, oppure è impossibile intervenire collettivamente su una cultura?
GA: Mi immagino che sia possibile. Io trovo tutt'attorno a me ebrei israeliani che si stanno de-ebraicizzando. Credo che essere un ebreo sia uno stato della mente. Credo che con il giusto aiuto, gli ebrei possano facilmente trovare il loro posto tra gli altri, la domanda è se vogliono stare con gli altri.
MR: Credi che sia possibile una pace sincera tra palestinesi e israeliani? Ritieni che si possa perdonare e superare la reciproca sfiducia?
GA: A me non interessa la pace, mi interessa la riconciliazione. Presumo che quando gli israeliani riconosceranno la sconfitta, si circonderanno le mura di un ghetto. Anzi, a pensarci, il fatto che stanno erigendo quelle mura attorno a loro indica che già riconoscono la loro sconfitta.
MR: Alcuni, come Leah Tzemel e Juliano Mer Khamis, dicono che a volte sentono come se il loro lavoro venisse usato come una foglia di fico, per dimostrare che il dissenso è accettabile in Israele. Ti sembra plausibile, e si tratta di un pericolo che gli attivisti israeliani spesso incontrano?
GA: Certo, ecco perché insisto nel non venire mai presentato come israeliano, ma come uno nato in Israele, ex-israeliano, ex-ebreo, palestinese di lingua ebraica. Quello che volete, ma non come israeliano o ebreo.
MR: Spesso hai scritto che rispetti il giudaismo come religione, ma che lo respingi come alibi per un paradigma politico ("questa terra ci è stata promessa e quindi è nostra di diritto"). Eppure critici certi aspetti della religione ebraica, come ad esempio il concetto di elezione. Credi che questa religione si possa riformare senza metterne in pericolo le fondamenta?
GA: L'elezione non è concetto giudaico; piuttosto si tratta di un chiaro errore di interpretazione ebraico del giudaismo. Nel contesto della religione ebraica, l'elezione costituisce un pesante dovere morale. Gli ebrei sono stati scelti come simbolo di un comportamento etico supremo. Lo dico, mentre sono pienamente a conoscenza di diverse leggi talmudiche scandalosamente razziste e immorali.
MR: Hai ambizioni politiche. Una volta, un po' per scherzo, avevi detto che saresti ritornato in Israele quando sarebbe diventato una Palestina unita, e che saresti stato felice di fare il Ministro della Cultura. Prima o poi, la politica attira molti. Credi che sia possibile partecipare alla vita politica?
GA: Non ci sono ambizioni politiche qui. Quando arriverà il momento, suonerò la mia musica al popolo palestinese.
MR: Recentemente, Jean Daniel ha scritto nel "The Jewish Prison" che Israele ha conservato una mentalità da ghetto, che contrasta con una più moderna idea di cosmopolitismo. Sei d'accordo, e se lo sei, c'è un modo per uscirne, o si tratta di qualcosa di endemico a molti aspetti della cultura ebraica, e quindi di una situazione difficile da cambiare?
GA: Sono d'accordo, e come forse puoi ricordare, ne ho parlato nel mio libro, Guide to the Perplexed. Gunther Wünker fu chiamato in Palestina per tirare fuori gli ebrei dal Ghetto. Il muro dell'apartheid che sta sorgendo dimostra senza dubbio il fallimento categorico del sionismo.
MR: Cosa pensi di Abu Mazen, o hai qualche previsione sulle prossime elezioni palestinesi?
GA: Mi interessa molto vedere il ruolo di Hamas.
MR: Manchi da molto tempo da Israele. I tuoi figli sono ancora piuttosto giovani, ma chiaramente sono coscienti del fatto che Israele svolge un ruolo importante nella vita dei loro genitori, come racconti Israele ai tuoi figli?
GA: Un anno fa, mia figlia, che allora aveva sette anni, dovette parlare in classe dell'origine dei suoi genitori. Quando arrivò a parlare di me, disse, "mio padre è una specie di palestinese". Credo che abbia capito.
MR: Quali sono le parole che pensi che gli israeliani dovrebbero dire ai palestinesi?
GA: Non devono dire proprio niente, hanno avuto tutto il tempo per parlare, comunque consiglierei ai palestinesi di non ascoltarli.
MR: Quali parole pensi che i palestinesi dovrebbero rivolgere agli israeliani?
GA: Devono solo ripetere lo stesso telegrafico messaggio, nessuna soluzione che non affronti la questione dei profughi e di Gerusalemme.
MR: Israele può in qualche modo redimersi? Oppure, la redenzione è un concetto cristiano che non si può trasferire a uno stato fondato su principi ebraici?
GA: Mi sembra che tu ti sia risposta da sola.
MR: Le opinioni contrapposte su come trattare la situazione mediorientale sono state tradizionalmente lette in maniera opposta a sinistra e a destra. Ma recentemente, sembra che entrambi si stiano spostando verso una linea di "moderazione". Anche se non si tratta esattamente di una nuova frontiera, pensi che si debba trovare un nuovo orientamento che non contrapponga destra e sinistra, in modo da rendere il discorso meno sterile e più produttivo?
GA: Io ritengo che destra e sinistra siano concetti superati. Sono interessato a un vero pensiero etico, qualcosa che non si trova tra i politici dei nostri tempi.
MR: Lev Grinberg ha scritto riguardo al "Genocidio culturale" condotto contro il popolo palestinese. Credi che una simile situazione sia possibile, e in tal caso esiste il modo di fermarlo?
GA: Certo che esiste, per farlo bisogna fermare Israele e prosciugare la cultura israeliana, boicottare gli accademici e gli artisti israeliani, trasformare Israele in un deserto culturale. Siamo già vicini.
MR: Sei soddisfatto di quello che hai realizzato?
GA: Vivo in pace.
MR: Che progetti hai per il futuro?
GA: Ogni sera io suono, ogni sera mi devo reinventare. Il mio progetto per il futuro è il mio prossimo concerto.
Articoli correlati
Antisemitismo,l'incitamento razziale La deificazione della razza. Una disputainterna ebraica. Antisemitismus, Rassenhetze, Rassenvergottung. Eineinnerjüdische Auseinandersetzung
Fischere Spassky: Due Infami ebrei antisemiti - Fischer And Spassky: TwoInfamous Jewish Anti-Semites
Sì,noi ebrei comandiamo Hollywood ed anche i media, Wall Street ed ilgoverno! - Who runs Hollywood ? C'mon
Gilad Atzmon Interview – It Ain’t Necessarily So
Gilad Atzmon is an acclaimed musician, writer and political commentator. He was born and raised in Israel, but has chosen the path of “exile” to England in 1994. Mary Rizzo of peacepalestine asked him some questions on the occasion of the publication of his second novel, My One and Only Love and ninth disc, entitled MusiK, which is nominated for the BBC’s Jazz Album of the Year Award. His previous album, Exile, won the award.
Mary Rizzo: I want to ask you some questions about your career and your activities as well as to talk about some of your ideas and opinions so that those interested can learn something about where you find yourself at this moment in your life. Let me begin with your most recent accomplishment, your second novel, “My One and Only Love”. Does it pick up where your first novel left off?
Gilad Atzmon: Not necessarily. I think that it is very different book and yet, it presents another form of deconstruction of the Israeli Identity.
MR: Do you consider your fiction to be political writing?
GA: I do not consider myself as a political being, thus neither my music or writings should be considered political. I am engaged in critical thinking.
MR: There is a certain amount of criticism claiming that your male characters are sexist and your female characters are generally empty. What is your opinion on this?
GA: I assume that this claim is probably grounded, if anything, I find my male characters to be pretty much broken beings. I think that there is a major lack of understanding between the sexes, I find it fascinating and stimulating. For me female sexuality is the ultimate explosive dimension of human craving. It is the ultimate desire. At the same time, it is the embodiment of male fear. As it seems, men prefer to die in the battlefield rather than to fail in bed.
MR: In your writing, most of your characters are heavily involved in autobiographical personal disclosure. Why do you use this technique?
GA: Mainly because I try to ridicule this research field. I think that a lot of Jewish power is based on the transformation of personal narrative into a historic one. A contemporary young Zionist would answer a humanistic challenge by referring to his grandfather’s personal story (Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.). I am engaged in presenting the fictitious character of the personal narrative. Your story is the story you want it to be. It isn’t a historic narrative and it isn’t even your fable. It is a mere construction.
MR: Identity and identification are recurring themes in both your fiction and your essays. Why are they that central a theme?
GA: Identity dominates the post war 20th century ‘intellectual’ discourse. It is presented as the true revelation of the ‘real self’. I ridicule this concept and argue that it is the other way around. Identity politics just alienate one from oneself. To say I am a Jew, a zio, a gay, a lesbian is to identify. It is a form of self alienation. It is very different from saying: I am ‘I’, which is probably the ultimate form of genuine self-reference. And yet, saying I am I is hardly revelatory. It is basically a form of tautology (very much like saying: ‘a’ is ‘a’). In short, I argue that the essence of identity politics i.e. the assumption that ‘the personal is political’ is an intellectual joke. The personal is personal whatever that means. By the time the personal becomes political it is nothing but personal.
MR: You have mentioned at times that there is a tendency for mainstream critics to censor voices that do not propagate the accepted Zionist narrative. Yet, taking the case of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” into account, could they perhaps inadvertently, or even not so inadvertently be giving free publicity? I personally don’t think his film would have been such a box office success without the aid of the ADL.
GA: For sure, I agree. I think that the Jewish organisations as well as Jewish people are very clever in winning small battles but are far better in losing the entire war. They are pretty clever in small tactical manoeuvres but they always lose the big war. The holocaust proves it beyond doubt, by the time Jews were almost in control of central European finance, culture and politics, the European Jewry was basically erased. By the time Israel is threatening the entire Middle East with its nuclear might, Israel’s population is dominated by non-Jews. In other words, it can’t be considered a Jewish state. By the time the American Jewry managed to dominate the new American right wing policies, their Zionist agenda is exposed and it is just a question of time before the American people will turn against their Jewish neighbours. By the way, this is far from being good news for our Palestinian brothers. As you can see, we are seeing impressive tactical manoeuvring but a severe lack of comprehension of the big picture.
MR: Is there a risk that an artist seeks scandal for the reason of the exposure it gives, and do you see yourself as running that risk? That is – is the actual work overshadowed by the personalisation of the artist and his own opinions?
GA: For sure, I am fully aware of it. I leave it to my audience/readers to decide.
MR: There aren’t that many writer/musicians whose creations have a consistent world view. The very few who come to my mind are Leonard Cohen and Nick Cave. Is there some difficulty in dedicating oneself to these two forms simultaneously, or is it fear of failure or fear of criticism which leads to some other creative block?
GA: To start with, my work is far from being consistent and I am very happy about that. I try to be consistent within a specific argument. If I understand you correctly you are referring here to the dual artistic activity. I think that by now my writing and music are complimentary. And I feel great about it. They stimulate each other, I have two Gilads that are growing on me independently, so far they are friendly. When they stop loving each other I’ll be in serious trouble.
MR: There is a very common tendency for Israeli-born writers to make political commentary, much more so it seems than writers of a different national origin. Think of Yehoshua, Grossman, yourself. Why do you think this is so?
GA: I think that it is pretty simple. The Israeli existence is tragically entangled with a severe guilt. To be an Israeli means to be a racist, a nationalist and a colonialist. Once you are an Israeli intellectual and I assume that Grossman is one (Yehoshua just insists to be one), you are doomed to try to resolve this tension.
MR: Some of your critics complain that you are an outstanding musician, and it would be better if you would just “shut up and play”, as if Gilad Atzmon the artist and Gilad Atzmon the commentator are distinct categories or separate entities. What do you have to say about your right to express your opinion, and the consequence that it gains resonance because you are an artist?
GA: Those critiques of mine are basically heard within very different Jewish ghettos, whether in Israel or posted in some Judeo-Cyber Shtetls. Obviously, those people fail to realise that I am a Jazz musician. Being who they are (segregated Jews) they fail to realise what does it mean to be a Jazz musician. To be a jazz man is to be a philosopher in the most radical German sense. It is ‘to search for the condition of the possibility’. It means to ask what Jazz is all about, what art is all about, what being in the world is all about and what Israel is all about. This is what I am doing sometimes with my sax shoved up my mouth and some other times with my laptop squashed under my heavy fingers.
MR: Have you noticed that there is an overlap in your audiences, that is, those who appreciate your music are open to your other outlets and vice versa? Or is the genre of music you compose dedicated to a more limited audience?
GA: I don’t really know, I think that as far as my music is concerned we (the Orient House Ensemble) are expanding all the time. As far as my novels are concerned, I attract some new readers. I would say that when it comes to the papers, we are dealing with very small circle of devoted readers. I do believe in the impact of popular culture.
MR: Not that many musicians have written about Israel, and when they do, it is largely unnoticed by the general public and the critics. The example that comes to mind is Patti Smith’s song about Rachel Corrie, “Peaceable Kingdom”. Yet, in every review I have read of your latest album, while there is no concrete suggestion that the songs are about Israel, the reviewer stresses your political ideas. Do you think that your music conveys this by itself, or that there are some preconceived notions about your message?
GA: I think, actually I am sure that most Europeans are utterly disgusted with Israeli expansionist and racist methods, and yet, they find it difficult to talk about it openly. I assume that to a certain extent, the OHE, a multi-ethnic band helps to express this voice. Mind you that I use the stage to say what I think about Israel and its young sister (America).
MR: In the brilliant song “Re-arranging the 20th Century”, there is a medley of standards, some very startling sound effects and a very dense arrangement. What do these juxtapositions mean?
GA: For me, to ‘Re-arrange the 20th century’ is to say; ‘It Ain’t Necessarily So’. It is to point at the Anglo-American victorious narrative and asking why did you murder almost one million innocent German civilians in the bomb raid on German towns while you could have clearly ended the war in 2 months targeting German logistic and industrial centres? Why did you raid Normandy in June 1944, wasn’t it only because Stalin was winning in the east? Why you had never found the time to bomb Auschwitz? Isn’t it because you didn’t want to admit to knowing about the German industrial killing machine, just in case you found yourself in an armistice with Nazi Germany… Why did you throw an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did it have something to do with the fact that Stalin (again) was about to interfere with your Pacific agenda? For me, Re-arranging the 20th century is to allow in all those questions, to allow in some other and very different narratives.
MR: Do you feel an affinity with other artists or is every artist an island unto himself?
GA: First I am leading an ensemble surrounding myself with very great musicians but to your question, the answer is yes, If anything I am very inspired by the golden era of jazz, Parker, Dizzy, Miles, Coltrane. They were revolutionary artists and this is where Jazz should be.
MR: You have collaborated with some very important musicians. What, if any, is the collaboration you really want to do?
GA: I am not a session musician anymore. I want to play my own music and to contribute my own voice to people who appreciate my personal voice. I really loved working with Robert Wyatt. A real genuine natural artistic spirit engaged solely with the creation of beauty!
MR: Religious parody taking the piss on Christianity is often appreciated by the masses, “The Life of Brian” being the most apparent example. But, for some reason, when the “target” is Judaism, it is instantly called anti-Semitic. What do you think of the case of Dieudonné?
GA: You know exactly what I think about anti Semitism…. Anyhow, I can hardly recall any ‘piss take’ of Judaism. If anything it is usually Jews that are ridiculed mainly for their greed and victim mentality. But then we should ask ourselves, why are they greedy. I argue that the lack of the notion of the Other is the core of this problematic identity. This is the core of the severe lack of authentic ethical thinking.
MR: What books have you been reading lately?
GA: The Voyeur - Alberto Moravia. What a shocking writer. The Jewish Century-Yuri Slezkine. Again, a very important book for anyone who really wants to know more about the current phase of Jewish supremacism.
MR: You know I love Mojo, so, in that vein, what are the ten tracks by others you would list as the most important to you?
GA: Oh no, I wouldn’t go for it, it will take me days, but I can tell you that Coltrane will be there and so are Piazzola, Bach, Bird, Brahms, Robert Wyatt, maybe the Beatles.
MR: The society we live in is greatly dependent on consumer values, which have positive aspects, such as easy access to culture to ample sectors of society, as well as the negative values culminating in the mad destruction of the world’s resources to feed our fuel dependence. In the Western world, it seems that our lifestyles and the acquisition of leisure are not negotiable. We are all to a greater or lesser degree part of the mechanism. Where should the line be drawn? What if anything should we start renouncing?
GA: As you probably know, I called my album musiK, emphasising the capital ‘K’, for me it is the K of musiK rather than the ‘c’ of music that stands for the aim towards beauty, towards the sublime, towards aesthetics.While the K is standing for the beauty, the C symbolises the Anglo-American commercialisation. This differentiation puts a categorical demarcation line between the superior ‘Kulture’ and the inferior mass-produced low ‘culture’. Saying that I argue that Kulture must be mass distributed. I do differentiate between the supreme philosophy of Emanuel Kant and the inferior market philosophy presented by the c**t Milton Friedman. I think that we are getting ready for the ‘no thanks’ revolution. When people would just say, no thanks I am not interested (in buying).
MR: Let’s talk about culture: are culture and politics strange bedfellows, such as Soviet Realism being deeply tied to the hegemonic system in power, or, can the patronage a political system provides allow for the development of culture at its highest level, taking into account an example of Renaissance Florence, where art was at the service of power. Does it only function when there is an illuminated power, and does such power exist or is that a myth?
GA: This is a very good question and cannot be answered briefly, I wrote a lot about the subject in the past. While in the past it was aristocracy and bourgeoisies that supported art and artists, in the liberal democrat society this role is taken by the politician. Those who fund artists and artistic projects. As a result, Western artists are far from being a critical voice. The other source of support is the cultural industry, again, not much of a chance of those artists to rebel. I assume that Jazz is the only form of possible critical voice. We simply need very little to make our art noticeable.
MR: There is a great binary relationship between religion and culture, especially in Europe’s history and in the period of Classic Arab expansion, to name those which are the most known to us Westerners, which has always been an important aspect in the past. Is that concept outdated?
GA: Interesting question again. You know I’ve never thought about it but as you may know, it is American Jews who control the Western cultural industry……It is more than likely that this is the reason that such a little spiritual context is filtering into our mass culture. And yet, let’s go back to Jazz, so much of the Jazz music was so entangled with religious thinking. Not any more though. In the end of the day, industry is there to accumulate money, and so is the culture industry. They must assume that Madonna’s ass sells better than a real spiritual revelation. I assume that they will be proved wrong but it may take some time only because Madonna does have glorious buttocks.
MR: Is there a problem with the notional focus of current culture? For example, at most levels of society, people are familiar with Don Quixote, but I don’t think many of us have had the opportunity to read Cervantes. The reasons for this are probably that all nations share a provincial idea of cultural diffusion, concentrating on local linguistic criteria. As a man of culture, do you see a solution to this, or is it in our day and age unavoidable or even positive?
GA: It is more than that, we live an image of global village just to make sure that we will never expand our views beyond the horizon. In fact our critical capabilities are shrinking by the second.
MR: Can culture be considered as escapism from reality or current events? Can it somehow be considered an alibi to political indifference or inactivity?
GA: Art, as much as art is culture, is there to suggest a possible alternative reality. And yet, I don’t think that art serves as an alibi as such. I think that the reason behind political indifference is pretty obvious. Once you tell me that I am entitled to vote for my future, I may as well lose interest in my future. Once a women tells you that you are welcome to challenge her liberal tendencies you may as well lose an interest in doing so.
MR: Alongside your other accomplishments, you are a Doctor of Philosophy. Drawing on your studies, do you have any views on the absolutism which is in vogue in our age, such as the counter-position of extremes such as internationalism vs unilateralism, secularism vs fundamentalism, non-violence vs the resorting to violence in international conflicts?
GA: I am not a Doctor of Philosophy, I was trained to be one but never made it to the final line, my music career took over. Now, to your question, I do not have any problem either with absolutism or with extremism. I do have a problem with shallow thinking mode. I do have a problem with Anglo-American colonialism presented as an aim towards the liberation of the Arab world. I have a problem with left Zionist righteousness. I have a problem with political correctness, with people who claim to know what is right and what is wrong.
MR: Following the events of 9/11 in the USA, Islamophobia, or in general, a diffidence of Arabs seems to run rampant in the West. Is it somehow different from the view of Arabs that Israelis have? Is there a way to counter this tendency?
GA: I agree that the similarities are shocking, I would as well admit that so far the Americans managed to copy every Israeli mistake. They copied right wing Israeli political strategy terrifying their own people with the possible consequences of terror. Mind you that I am not there to save America, I would just say that America is at the moment a single super power. Thus the only force who can bring it down is the Americans themselves. I must admit that Bush and his neo-cons are the right people for the job. They have my blessing.
MR: Do you think racism is based on ignorance, is a consequence of an active adhesion to an ideology, or is it based even partly on objective elements?
GA: To start with, people are racially aware creatures, then the question to be followed is what are they doing with their awareness. We must admit that people do look different, and may have some different physical and intellectual qualities. Racism is when one favours one race to the other. This is not necessarily something to do with ignorance, it is usually the consequence of a supremacist view. Something that is well brewed in Talmudic thinking. So by the time you are a Talmudic scholar you must be a racist. It has nothing to do with ignorance, if anything it is the other way around. In Judaism, racism is a subject of education.
MR: In Italy, there is a trend in the mass media to present “Good Arab” commentators, who spend a great deal of time openly criticising Islam, largely unchallenged, because they are deemed as moderates. At the same time, the “Good Jew”, which is often referred to by pro-Israel supporters is a detrimental term, meaning, one who criticises Israel, but does not touch upon Judaism, rather, avoids commenting on religion at all costs. Why do you think this is so? What purpose is it serving?
GA: I think that this is obvious, we are in the launching a modern day crusade here. But if to be more precise, I myself try to avoid the Judaic topic. For me it is the Jewish Identity rather than Judaism. I am familiar with many texts to do with the Judaic and Talmudic supremacist code and yet, for me it is the secular Zionism appears to be the embodiment of modern evil.
MR: You have on occasion criticised people referring to themselves as secular Jews and arguing against Zionism in that capacity. Yet, it seems evident to me that often they are quite effective in diffusing the message that it is possible for Jews to combat Zionism to those who think that all Jews demonstrate blind loyalty to Israel. Why is this combination problematic for you, even if it is effective?
GA: I would like to summarise my thought about the subject into 2 sentences:
1. If Zionism is inhuman then one’s argument against it should stand for itself, in other words, one’s ethnic or social belonging, religious belief or sexual preferences are all irrelevant to the argument.
2. To debate Zionism as a Jew is to surrender to the Zionist idea that Jewishness is the most relevant predicate attached to Jewish people.
Now, I can see that some of those attacks are effective, but at the same time they may as well serve the Zionist cause. It presents the Jewish world as a plural and polar society. This fits very well into the Zionist strategy. If anything it provides Israel and Zionism with an intellectual body armour. Since I find the arguments stated in the name of Jewish secularism empty, I feel an urgent need to deconstruct them. I may as well mention that I welcome Judaic objection to Zionism. I truly support Neturei Karta and any other form of Jewish religious objection to Zionism.
MR: Those calling themselves atheist Jews present another problem, for if God doesn’t exist, then the premise of a Jewish State is empty. What then is it that causes so many atheist Jews to support a Jewish State if it presents a major philosophical problem in that it is an oxymoron?
GA: True, in fact, Zionism, in its early days, was a secular marginal movement. It suggested an interpretation of the Bible as a legal document (a land registry) rather than a spiritual text. In practice, this is a form of Jewish Evangelism that is much more dangerous than any religious school.
MR: Why do you think that the US supports Israel so much? Will this continue for a long time?
GA: Zionism offered itself as a servant of Western colonialism. First it was the British empire, now it is America. As long as there is conflict in the region, the Americans are involved. Nowadays, we are facing a major shift, it isn’t anymore Israel serving America but rather the other way around, the Americans are fighting the last pockets of Arab resistance to Zionism. I assume that it is just a question of time before the American people realise where their Zionists are leading them.
MR: Will the American Century that is upon us come to an end? Or is the very unilateral nature of Pax Americana preventing any other areas of the globe to express themselves in full development?
GA: It will come to an end, probably with end of America. Mind you that from many different aspects America is already going through a process of disintegration: legally, socially and diplomatically.
MR: Why don’t mainstream Jewish groups criticise Israel?
GA: Because there is no such a thing (mainstream Jewish groups). Jewishness is a radical identity based on chosenness and supremacism.
MR: Do you make a distinction between Israel and Israelis?
GA: Not really, Israelis are people who colonise Palestine, Israel is the concept of the colonisation of Palestine.
MR: If a person is ill, it is necessary to administer medicine so that he can operate at maximum efficiency to the best of his potential. Let’s make the analogy with societies. What medicine would you prescribe for Israel?
GA: NONE, Israel has no right to exist, it is the biggest threat to world peace. Israel should become a state of its citizens but when that happens it will be called Palestine.
MR: For the USA?
GA: None, America is doing all the right things. It’s destroying itself efficiently. I think that America should stop putting the interests of the Israelis first, a sort of ‘Jewnited state of Jewmerica’, it better start being the United State of the American people, it may take some time.
MR: For Palestine?
GA: Palestine will be OK, time works on behalf of the Palestinian people.
MR: One of the possible prospects in the near future is the adhesion of Israel to the European Union, and that of Russia is hardly taken into consideration. Could this adhesion exacerbate the current ideological impetus of the Atlantic Alliance, seeing as how the new nations have been granted automatic entry into the NATO, or could it pave the way for a Mediterranean focus?
GA: I am not an expert in EU affairs but I do not see apartheid Israel joining the EU in a million years.
MR: Do you follow Israeli politics?
GA: Not closely, anyhow, not anymore.
MR: Do you think that Zionism is a historical movement that will someday cease to be relevant such as most other dynamic and nationalist movements such as Garibaldism, Jacobinism and Nazism which were specific to a historical period, or is it a mutable, permanent ideology which adapts to historical situations and can be applied to other aspects beyond the Israeli nationalist movement of a Jewish State in Palestine?
GA: Interesting, as a matter of fact, Zionism was already dead between the late 1970s and the beginning of the 2nd Intifada. Zionism is a form of negation, as long as Jews can present with a conflict Zionism would be fuelled.
MR: Do you believe that there are different types of Zionism, such as Buber’s Cultural Zionism, or the “light” Zionism practiced by Peace Now? Is there any type that has positive characteristics?
GA: No, the differences are marginal and negligible. Zionism is the belief that Jews are entitled to a national home in Palestine. This concept is unacceptable. First, because Jews are not a nation. A nation are people who are already dwelling on a land. And second, because Palestine is not free. Besides, Zionism is racist. It is the state of the Jews, but Jewishness is racial definition. It is religious fundamentalist, with the transformation of the Bible into a legal document, (read above). It is as well Colonialist, a legal system that favours the foreign over the indigenous. All forms of Zionism fall into these categories. They are unacceptable.
MR: I know many people who believe that your approach to Israel is all wrong, even if the ends you seek are acceptable. They insist that the realisation of Israeli crimes is a slow awakening, and any progress they have made in adopting this world view, which runs contrary to most of the information they have been taught and have believed in good faith, has been made with a non-accusatory, non-confrontational approach. What do you think of this?
GA: I am not interested in talking to Israelis or Jews. I am talking about Israelis, Israel and ‘Jewish Identity’ This is a big difference. Moreover, I am not a politician and I don’t have a political aim. I want to say what I have to say, the fact that some people are found to be extremely unhappy about my views makes me feel very comfortable.
MR: What are the fears of the Israelis, and what is preventing them from accepting a peaceful coexistence with the native population? Is there any justification to their mindset?
GA: For sure, peacefulness is a very non Jewish concept. Needless to say that history proves it beyond doubt. Look at post WW2 peaceful Europe, look what happened to the Middle East as soon as the Zionists decided to immigrate there en masse, look at contemporary America serving Zionist interests. When Zionist politicians talk about peace they would say: “we like peace, but we want to define its terms and conditions”, this is just to show how remote the Israeli subject is from any notion of reconciliation. Peace is to engage oneself in an empathic relationship with the Other, this can never happen as long as one perceives oneself as chosen. For Israelis, peace is a form of burgeoning, it is the materialisation of empathy, to live in peace means to enjoy different forms of security.
MR: Many people have recently been investigating the issue of Jewish Denial as being an intrinsic part of the lack of progress in recognising the suffering of the Palestinians. Others have concentrated on the victim mentality which is expressed in a macroscopic way with the emphasis on the Holocaust. You focus on these elements both in your fiction and your essays. Is this a situation which can be altered in some way, or is it impossible to intervene collectively on a culture?
GA: I assume that it is possible, I am surrounded with Israeli Jews that de-Judify themselves. I assume that to be a Jew is a mental state, I assume that with the right assistance Jews can easily find their place amongst others, the question is whether they want to be amongst others.
MR: Do you believe in the possibility of a sincere peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Is it possible to forgive and to overcome the mutual distrust?
GA: I am not interested in peace but rather in reconciliation. I assume that by the time the Israelis will acknowledge defeat they will encircle themselves with ghetto walls. As a matter of fact thinking about the emerging walls they erect around themselves they are already acknowledging defeat.
MR: Persons such as Leah Tzemel and Juliano Mer Khamis have said that they at times feel that their work is used as a fig leaf to demonstrate that dissent is acceptable in Israel. Does this thought make sense to you and is it a danger that Israeli activists often face?
GA: For sure, this is the reason that I insist never to be presented as an Israeli, but rather as an Israeli born, ex Israeli, Ex Jew, Hebrew speaking Palestinian. Nothing but Israeli or Jew.
MR: You have often written that you respect Judaism as a religion, but reject it as an alibi for a political paradigm (“this land was promised to us and that gives us the right to it”). Yet, you are critical of aspects of the Jewish religion, such as the concept of chosenness. Do you think this religion can be reformed without endangering its basic tenets?
GA: Chosenness isn’t a Judaic concept but rather a clear Jewish misinterpretation of Judaism. Within the context of the Jewish religion being chosen is a heavy moral duty. Jews are chosen to stand as a symbol of supreme ethical behaviour. Saying that I am fully aware of the different outrageous Talmudic racist and immoral laws.
MR: Do you have political ambitions? You once half jokingly said you’d return to Israel once it became a united Palestine, and you’d be happy to serve in the Ministry of Culture. Sooner or later, politics is a siren song to many. Do you think it possible to participate in political life?
GA: No political ambitions here. When the time comes, I will come to Palestine to play my music to the Palestinian people.
MR: Jean Daniel has recently written in “The Jewish Prison” that Israel has maintained a ghetto mentality, which runs against a more modern concept of the idea of the cosmopolitan. Do you agree, and if so, is there a way to break out of this, or is it endemic in many aspects of Jewish culture and therefore a difficult situation to change?
GA: I agree, and as you may remember I dealt with it in Guide to the Perplexed. Gunther Wünker was called to Palestine to get the Jews out of the Ghetto. The emerging apartheid wall proves beyond doubt that Zionism failed categorically.
MR: Do you have any opinions on Abu Mazen, or predictions about the upcoming Palestinian elections?
GA: I am very interested to see the role of the Hamas.
MR: You have been away from Israel for a long time. Given that your children are still quite young, but obviously aware that Israel plays an important part in their parents’ lives, how do you recount Israel to your children?
GA: A year ago my daughter, seven years old at the time, had to reveal in class the origin of her parents, when it came to me she said: “my father is a kind of a Palestinian” I think that she got the message.
MR: What words do you think Israelis should say to Palestinians?
GA: They don’t have to say a thing, they had enough time to say, anyhow I would advise the Palestinians not to listen.
MR: What words do you think Palestinians should say to Israelis?
GA: Just to repeat the same laconic message, no solution without the addressing the refugees issue and Jerusalem.
MR: Can Israel somehow redeem itself if it throws off Zionism? Or is redemption a Christian concept that is not transferable to a State founded upon Jewish principles?
GA: I think that you answered yourself.
MR: The conflicting views on how the Middle Eastern situation should be handled have traditionally had opposite readings between the Left and the Right. But, lately, it seems that both of them are moving towards a line of “moderation”. While not exactly a new frontier, do you think that a new focus should be made that does not counterpoise Left and Right, so that the discourse can be less sterile and more productive?
GA: I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians.
MR: Lev Grinberg has written about “Cultural Genocide” operated against the Palestinian people. Do you believe such a situation is possible, and if so, is there a way to stop it?
GA: For sure it is possible, the way to stop it is to stop Israel and to dry out the Israeli culture, to boycott Israeli academics and artists, to turn the Israelis into a cultural desert. We aren’t that far already.
MR: Are you satisfied with your accomplishments?
GA: I live in peace.
MR: What are your future projects?
GA: Every night I perform, every night I have to reinvent myself. My future project is my next concert.
Mary Rizzo: I want to ask you some questions about your career and your activities as well as to talk about some of your ideas and opinions so that those interested can learn something about where you find yourself at this moment in your life. Let me begin with your most recent accomplishment, your second novel, “My One and Only Love”. Does it pick up where your first novel left off?
Gilad Atzmon: Not necessarily. I think that it is very different book and yet, it presents another form of deconstruction of the Israeli Identity.
MR: Do you consider your fiction to be political writing?
GA: I do not consider myself as a political being, thus neither my music or writings should be considered political. I am engaged in critical thinking.
MR: There is a certain amount of criticism claiming that your male characters are sexist and your female characters are generally empty. What is your opinion on this?
GA: I assume that this claim is probably grounded, if anything, I find my male characters to be pretty much broken beings. I think that there is a major lack of understanding between the sexes, I find it fascinating and stimulating. For me female sexuality is the ultimate explosive dimension of human craving. It is the ultimate desire. At the same time, it is the embodiment of male fear. As it seems, men prefer to die in the battlefield rather than to fail in bed.
MR: In your writing, most of your characters are heavily involved in autobiographical personal disclosure. Why do you use this technique?
GA: Mainly because I try to ridicule this research field. I think that a lot of Jewish power is based on the transformation of personal narrative into a historic one. A contemporary young Zionist would answer a humanistic challenge by referring to his grandfather’s personal story (Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.). I am engaged in presenting the fictitious character of the personal narrative. Your story is the story you want it to be. It isn’t a historic narrative and it isn’t even your fable. It is a mere construction.
MR: Identity and identification are recurring themes in both your fiction and your essays. Why are they that central a theme?
GA: Identity dominates the post war 20th century ‘intellectual’ discourse. It is presented as the true revelation of the ‘real self’. I ridicule this concept and argue that it is the other way around. Identity politics just alienate one from oneself. To say I am a Jew, a zio, a gay, a lesbian is to identify. It is a form of self alienation. It is very different from saying: I am ‘I’, which is probably the ultimate form of genuine self-reference. And yet, saying I am I is hardly revelatory. It is basically a form of tautology (very much like saying: ‘a’ is ‘a’). In short, I argue that the essence of identity politics i.e. the assumption that ‘the personal is political’ is an intellectual joke. The personal is personal whatever that means. By the time the personal becomes political it is nothing but personal.
MR: You have mentioned at times that there is a tendency for mainstream critics to censor voices that do not propagate the accepted Zionist narrative. Yet, taking the case of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of Christ” into account, could they perhaps inadvertently, or even not so inadvertently be giving free publicity? I personally don’t think his film would have been such a box office success without the aid of the ADL.
GA: For sure, I agree. I think that the Jewish organisations as well as Jewish people are very clever in winning small battles but are far better in losing the entire war. They are pretty clever in small tactical manoeuvres but they always lose the big war. The holocaust proves it beyond doubt, by the time Jews were almost in control of central European finance, culture and politics, the European Jewry was basically erased. By the time Israel is threatening the entire Middle East with its nuclear might, Israel’s population is dominated by non-Jews. In other words, it can’t be considered a Jewish state. By the time the American Jewry managed to dominate the new American right wing policies, their Zionist agenda is exposed and it is just a question of time before the American people will turn against their Jewish neighbours. By the way, this is far from being good news for our Palestinian brothers. As you can see, we are seeing impressive tactical manoeuvring but a severe lack of comprehension of the big picture.
MR: Is there a risk that an artist seeks scandal for the reason of the exposure it gives, and do you see yourself as running that risk? That is – is the actual work overshadowed by the personalisation of the artist and his own opinions?
GA: For sure, I am fully aware of it. I leave it to my audience/readers to decide.
MR: There aren’t that many writer/musicians whose creations have a consistent world view. The very few who come to my mind are Leonard Cohen and Nick Cave. Is there some difficulty in dedicating oneself to these two forms simultaneously, or is it fear of failure or fear of criticism which leads to some other creative block?
GA: To start with, my work is far from being consistent and I am very happy about that. I try to be consistent within a specific argument. If I understand you correctly you are referring here to the dual artistic activity. I think that by now my writing and music are complimentary. And I feel great about it. They stimulate each other, I have two Gilads that are growing on me independently, so far they are friendly. When they stop loving each other I’ll be in serious trouble.
MR: There is a very common tendency for Israeli-born writers to make political commentary, much more so it seems than writers of a different national origin. Think of Yehoshua, Grossman, yourself. Why do you think this is so?
GA: I think that it is pretty simple. The Israeli existence is tragically entangled with a severe guilt. To be an Israeli means to be a racist, a nationalist and a colonialist. Once you are an Israeli intellectual and I assume that Grossman is one (Yehoshua just insists to be one), you are doomed to try to resolve this tension.
MR: Some of your critics complain that you are an outstanding musician, and it would be better if you would just “shut up and play”, as if Gilad Atzmon the artist and Gilad Atzmon the commentator are distinct categories or separate entities. What do you have to say about your right to express your opinion, and the consequence that it gains resonance because you are an artist?
GA: Those critiques of mine are basically heard within very different Jewish ghettos, whether in Israel or posted in some Judeo-Cyber Shtetls. Obviously, those people fail to realise that I am a Jazz musician. Being who they are (segregated Jews) they fail to realise what does it mean to be a Jazz musician. To be a jazz man is to be a philosopher in the most radical German sense. It is ‘to search for the condition of the possibility’. It means to ask what Jazz is all about, what art is all about, what being in the world is all about and what Israel is all about. This is what I am doing sometimes with my sax shoved up my mouth and some other times with my laptop squashed under my heavy fingers.
MR: Have you noticed that there is an overlap in your audiences, that is, those who appreciate your music are open to your other outlets and vice versa? Or is the genre of music you compose dedicated to a more limited audience?
GA: I don’t really know, I think that as far as my music is concerned we (the Orient House Ensemble) are expanding all the time. As far as my novels are concerned, I attract some new readers. I would say that when it comes to the papers, we are dealing with very small circle of devoted readers. I do believe in the impact of popular culture.
MR: Not that many musicians have written about Israel, and when they do, it is largely unnoticed by the general public and the critics. The example that comes to mind is Patti Smith’s song about Rachel Corrie, “Peaceable Kingdom”. Yet, in every review I have read of your latest album, while there is no concrete suggestion that the songs are about Israel, the reviewer stresses your political ideas. Do you think that your music conveys this by itself, or that there are some preconceived notions about your message?
GA: I think, actually I am sure that most Europeans are utterly disgusted with Israeli expansionist and racist methods, and yet, they find it difficult to talk about it openly. I assume that to a certain extent, the OHE, a multi-ethnic band helps to express this voice. Mind you that I use the stage to say what I think about Israel and its young sister (America).
MR: In the brilliant song “Re-arranging the 20th Century”, there is a medley of standards, some very startling sound effects and a very dense arrangement. What do these juxtapositions mean?
GA: For me, to ‘Re-arrange the 20th century’ is to say; ‘It Ain’t Necessarily So’. It is to point at the Anglo-American victorious narrative and asking why did you murder almost one million innocent German civilians in the bomb raid on German towns while you could have clearly ended the war in 2 months targeting German logistic and industrial centres? Why did you raid Normandy in June 1944, wasn’t it only because Stalin was winning in the east? Why you had never found the time to bomb Auschwitz? Isn’t it because you didn’t want to admit to knowing about the German industrial killing machine, just in case you found yourself in an armistice with Nazi Germany… Why did you throw an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did it have something to do with the fact that Stalin (again) was about to interfere with your Pacific agenda? For me, Re-arranging the 20th century is to allow in all those questions, to allow in some other and very different narratives.
MR: Do you feel an affinity with other artists or is every artist an island unto himself?
GA: First I am leading an ensemble surrounding myself with very great musicians but to your question, the answer is yes, If anything I am very inspired by the golden era of jazz, Parker, Dizzy, Miles, Coltrane. They were revolutionary artists and this is where Jazz should be.
MR: You have collaborated with some very important musicians. What, if any, is the collaboration you really want to do?
GA: I am not a session musician anymore. I want to play my own music and to contribute my own voice to people who appreciate my personal voice. I really loved working with Robert Wyatt. A real genuine natural artistic spirit engaged solely with the creation of beauty!
MR: Religious parody taking the piss on Christianity is often appreciated by the masses, “The Life of Brian” being the most apparent example. But, for some reason, when the “target” is Judaism, it is instantly called anti-Semitic. What do you think of the case of Dieudonné?
GA: You know exactly what I think about anti Semitism…. Anyhow, I can hardly recall any ‘piss take’ of Judaism. If anything it is usually Jews that are ridiculed mainly for their greed and victim mentality. But then we should ask ourselves, why are they greedy. I argue that the lack of the notion of the Other is the core of this problematic identity. This is the core of the severe lack of authentic ethical thinking.
MR: What books have you been reading lately?
GA: The Voyeur - Alberto Moravia. What a shocking writer. The Jewish Century-Yuri Slezkine. Again, a very important book for anyone who really wants to know more about the current phase of Jewish supremacism.
MR: You know I love Mojo, so, in that vein, what are the ten tracks by others you would list as the most important to you?
GA: Oh no, I wouldn’t go for it, it will take me days, but I can tell you that Coltrane will be there and so are Piazzola, Bach, Bird, Brahms, Robert Wyatt, maybe the Beatles.
MR: The society we live in is greatly dependent on consumer values, which have positive aspects, such as easy access to culture to ample sectors of society, as well as the negative values culminating in the mad destruction of the world’s resources to feed our fuel dependence. In the Western world, it seems that our lifestyles and the acquisition of leisure are not negotiable. We are all to a greater or lesser degree part of the mechanism. Where should the line be drawn? What if anything should we start renouncing?
GA: As you probably know, I called my album musiK, emphasising the capital ‘K’, for me it is the K of musiK rather than the ‘c’ of music that stands for the aim towards beauty, towards the sublime, towards aesthetics.While the K is standing for the beauty, the C symbolises the Anglo-American commercialisation. This differentiation puts a categorical demarcation line between the superior ‘Kulture’ and the inferior mass-produced low ‘culture’. Saying that I argue that Kulture must be mass distributed. I do differentiate between the supreme philosophy of Emanuel Kant and the inferior market philosophy presented by the c**t Milton Friedman. I think that we are getting ready for the ‘no thanks’ revolution. When people would just say, no thanks I am not interested (in buying).
MR: Let’s talk about culture: are culture and politics strange bedfellows, such as Soviet Realism being deeply tied to the hegemonic system in power, or, can the patronage a political system provides allow for the development of culture at its highest level, taking into account an example of Renaissance Florence, where art was at the service of power. Does it only function when there is an illuminated power, and does such power exist or is that a myth?
GA: This is a very good question and cannot be answered briefly, I wrote a lot about the subject in the past. While in the past it was aristocracy and bourgeoisies that supported art and artists, in the liberal democrat society this role is taken by the politician. Those who fund artists and artistic projects. As a result, Western artists are far from being a critical voice. The other source of support is the cultural industry, again, not much of a chance of those artists to rebel. I assume that Jazz is the only form of possible critical voice. We simply need very little to make our art noticeable.
MR: There is a great binary relationship between religion and culture, especially in Europe’s history and in the period of Classic Arab expansion, to name those which are the most known to us Westerners, which has always been an important aspect in the past. Is that concept outdated?
GA: Interesting question again. You know I’ve never thought about it but as you may know, it is American Jews who control the Western cultural industry……It is more than likely that this is the reason that such a little spiritual context is filtering into our mass culture. And yet, let’s go back to Jazz, so much of the Jazz music was so entangled with religious thinking. Not any more though. In the end of the day, industry is there to accumulate money, and so is the culture industry. They must assume that Madonna’s ass sells better than a real spiritual revelation. I assume that they will be proved wrong but it may take some time only because Madonna does have glorious buttocks.
MR: Is there a problem with the notional focus of current culture? For example, at most levels of society, people are familiar with Don Quixote, but I don’t think many of us have had the opportunity to read Cervantes. The reasons for this are probably that all nations share a provincial idea of cultural diffusion, concentrating on local linguistic criteria. As a man of culture, do you see a solution to this, or is it in our day and age unavoidable or even positive?
GA: It is more than that, we live an image of global village just to make sure that we will never expand our views beyond the horizon. In fact our critical capabilities are shrinking by the second.
MR: Can culture be considered as escapism from reality or current events? Can it somehow be considered an alibi to political indifference or inactivity?
GA: Art, as much as art is culture, is there to suggest a possible alternative reality. And yet, I don’t think that art serves as an alibi as such. I think that the reason behind political indifference is pretty obvious. Once you tell me that I am entitled to vote for my future, I may as well lose interest in my future. Once a women tells you that you are welcome to challenge her liberal tendencies you may as well lose an interest in doing so.
MR: Alongside your other accomplishments, you are a Doctor of Philosophy. Drawing on your studies, do you have any views on the absolutism which is in vogue in our age, such as the counter-position of extremes such as internationalism vs unilateralism, secularism vs fundamentalism, non-violence vs the resorting to violence in international conflicts?
GA: I am not a Doctor of Philosophy, I was trained to be one but never made it to the final line, my music career took over. Now, to your question, I do not have any problem either with absolutism or with extremism. I do have a problem with shallow thinking mode. I do have a problem with Anglo-American colonialism presented as an aim towards the liberation of the Arab world. I have a problem with left Zionist righteousness. I have a problem with political correctness, with people who claim to know what is right and what is wrong.
MR: Following the events of 9/11 in the USA, Islamophobia, or in general, a diffidence of Arabs seems to run rampant in the West. Is it somehow different from the view of Arabs that Israelis have? Is there a way to counter this tendency?
GA: I agree that the similarities are shocking, I would as well admit that so far the Americans managed to copy every Israeli mistake. They copied right wing Israeli political strategy terrifying their own people with the possible consequences of terror. Mind you that I am not there to save America, I would just say that America is at the moment a single super power. Thus the only force who can bring it down is the Americans themselves. I must admit that Bush and his neo-cons are the right people for the job. They have my blessing.
MR: Do you think racism is based on ignorance, is a consequence of an active adhesion to an ideology, or is it based even partly on objective elements?
GA: To start with, people are racially aware creatures, then the question to be followed is what are they doing with their awareness. We must admit that people do look different, and may have some different physical and intellectual qualities. Racism is when one favours one race to the other. This is not necessarily something to do with ignorance, it is usually the consequence of a supremacist view. Something that is well brewed in Talmudic thinking. So by the time you are a Talmudic scholar you must be a racist. It has nothing to do with ignorance, if anything it is the other way around. In Judaism, racism is a subject of education.
MR: In Italy, there is a trend in the mass media to present “Good Arab” commentators, who spend a great deal of time openly criticising Islam, largely unchallenged, because they are deemed as moderates. At the same time, the “Good Jew”, which is often referred to by pro-Israel supporters is a detrimental term, meaning, one who criticises Israel, but does not touch upon Judaism, rather, avoids commenting on religion at all costs. Why do you think this is so? What purpose is it serving?
GA: I think that this is obvious, we are in the launching a modern day crusade here. But if to be more precise, I myself try to avoid the Judaic topic. For me it is the Jewish Identity rather than Judaism. I am familiar with many texts to do with the Judaic and Talmudic supremacist code and yet, for me it is the secular Zionism appears to be the embodiment of modern evil.
MR: You have on occasion criticised people referring to themselves as secular Jews and arguing against Zionism in that capacity. Yet, it seems evident to me that often they are quite effective in diffusing the message that it is possible for Jews to combat Zionism to those who think that all Jews demonstrate blind loyalty to Israel. Why is this combination problematic for you, even if it is effective?
GA: I would like to summarise my thought about the subject into 2 sentences:
1. If Zionism is inhuman then one’s argument against it should stand for itself, in other words, one’s ethnic or social belonging, religious belief or sexual preferences are all irrelevant to the argument.
2. To debate Zionism as a Jew is to surrender to the Zionist idea that Jewishness is the most relevant predicate attached to Jewish people.
Now, I can see that some of those attacks are effective, but at the same time they may as well serve the Zionist cause. It presents the Jewish world as a plural and polar society. This fits very well into the Zionist strategy. If anything it provides Israel and Zionism with an intellectual body armour. Since I find the arguments stated in the name of Jewish secularism empty, I feel an urgent need to deconstruct them. I may as well mention that I welcome Judaic objection to Zionism. I truly support Neturei Karta and any other form of Jewish religious objection to Zionism.
MR: Those calling themselves atheist Jews present another problem, for if God doesn’t exist, then the premise of a Jewish State is empty. What then is it that causes so many atheist Jews to support a Jewish State if it presents a major philosophical problem in that it is an oxymoron?
GA: True, in fact, Zionism, in its early days, was a secular marginal movement. It suggested an interpretation of the Bible as a legal document (a land registry) rather than a spiritual text. In practice, this is a form of Jewish Evangelism that is much more dangerous than any religious school.
MR: Why do you think that the US supports Israel so much? Will this continue for a long time?
GA: Zionism offered itself as a servant of Western colonialism. First it was the British empire, now it is America. As long as there is conflict in the region, the Americans are involved. Nowadays, we are facing a major shift, it isn’t anymore Israel serving America but rather the other way around, the Americans are fighting the last pockets of Arab resistance to Zionism. I assume that it is just a question of time before the American people realise where their Zionists are leading them.
MR: Will the American Century that is upon us come to an end? Or is the very unilateral nature of Pax Americana preventing any other areas of the globe to express themselves in full development?
GA: It will come to an end, probably with end of America. Mind you that from many different aspects America is already going through a process of disintegration: legally, socially and diplomatically.
MR: Why don’t mainstream Jewish groups criticise Israel?
GA: Because there is no such a thing (mainstream Jewish groups). Jewishness is a radical identity based on chosenness and supremacism.
MR: Do you make a distinction between Israel and Israelis?
GA: Not really, Israelis are people who colonise Palestine, Israel is the concept of the colonisation of Palestine.
MR: If a person is ill, it is necessary to administer medicine so that he can operate at maximum efficiency to the best of his potential. Let’s make the analogy with societies. What medicine would you prescribe for Israel?
GA: NONE, Israel has no right to exist, it is the biggest threat to world peace. Israel should become a state of its citizens but when that happens it will be called Palestine.
MR: For the USA?
GA: None, America is doing all the right things. It’s destroying itself efficiently. I think that America should stop putting the interests of the Israelis first, a sort of ‘Jewnited state of Jewmerica’, it better start being the United State of the American people, it may take some time.
MR: For Palestine?
GA: Palestine will be OK, time works on behalf of the Palestinian people.
MR: One of the possible prospects in the near future is the adhesion of Israel to the European Union, and that of Russia is hardly taken into consideration. Could this adhesion exacerbate the current ideological impetus of the Atlantic Alliance, seeing as how the new nations have been granted automatic entry into the NATO, or could it pave the way for a Mediterranean focus?
GA: I am not an expert in EU affairs but I do not see apartheid Israel joining the EU in a million years.
MR: Do you follow Israeli politics?
GA: Not closely, anyhow, not anymore.
MR: Do you think that Zionism is a historical movement that will someday cease to be relevant such as most other dynamic and nationalist movements such as Garibaldism, Jacobinism and Nazism which were specific to a historical period, or is it a mutable, permanent ideology which adapts to historical situations and can be applied to other aspects beyond the Israeli nationalist movement of a Jewish State in Palestine?
GA: Interesting, as a matter of fact, Zionism was already dead between the late 1970s and the beginning of the 2nd Intifada. Zionism is a form of negation, as long as Jews can present with a conflict Zionism would be fuelled.
MR: Do you believe that there are different types of Zionism, such as Buber’s Cultural Zionism, or the “light” Zionism practiced by Peace Now? Is there any type that has positive characteristics?
GA: No, the differences are marginal and negligible. Zionism is the belief that Jews are entitled to a national home in Palestine. This concept is unacceptable. First, because Jews are not a nation. A nation are people who are already dwelling on a land. And second, because Palestine is not free. Besides, Zionism is racist. It is the state of the Jews, but Jewishness is racial definition. It is religious fundamentalist, with the transformation of the Bible into a legal document, (read above). It is as well Colonialist, a legal system that favours the foreign over the indigenous. All forms of Zionism fall into these categories. They are unacceptable.
MR: I know many people who believe that your approach to Israel is all wrong, even if the ends you seek are acceptable. They insist that the realisation of Israeli crimes is a slow awakening, and any progress they have made in adopting this world view, which runs contrary to most of the information they have been taught and have believed in good faith, has been made with a non-accusatory, non-confrontational approach. What do you think of this?
GA: I am not interested in talking to Israelis or Jews. I am talking about Israelis, Israel and ‘Jewish Identity’ This is a big difference. Moreover, I am not a politician and I don’t have a political aim. I want to say what I have to say, the fact that some people are found to be extremely unhappy about my views makes me feel very comfortable.
MR: What are the fears of the Israelis, and what is preventing them from accepting a peaceful coexistence with the native population? Is there any justification to their mindset?
GA: For sure, peacefulness is a very non Jewish concept. Needless to say that history proves it beyond doubt. Look at post WW2 peaceful Europe, look what happened to the Middle East as soon as the Zionists decided to immigrate there en masse, look at contemporary America serving Zionist interests. When Zionist politicians talk about peace they would say: “we like peace, but we want to define its terms and conditions”, this is just to show how remote the Israeli subject is from any notion of reconciliation. Peace is to engage oneself in an empathic relationship with the Other, this can never happen as long as one perceives oneself as chosen. For Israelis, peace is a form of burgeoning, it is the materialisation of empathy, to live in peace means to enjoy different forms of security.
MR: Many people have recently been investigating the issue of Jewish Denial as being an intrinsic part of the lack of progress in recognising the suffering of the Palestinians. Others have concentrated on the victim mentality which is expressed in a macroscopic way with the emphasis on the Holocaust. You focus on these elements both in your fiction and your essays. Is this a situation which can be altered in some way, or is it impossible to intervene collectively on a culture?
GA: I assume that it is possible, I am surrounded with Israeli Jews that de-Judify themselves. I assume that to be a Jew is a mental state, I assume that with the right assistance Jews can easily find their place amongst others, the question is whether they want to be amongst others.
MR: Do you believe in the possibility of a sincere peace between Palestinians and Israelis? Is it possible to forgive and to overcome the mutual distrust?
GA: I am not interested in peace but rather in reconciliation. I assume that by the time the Israelis will acknowledge defeat they will encircle themselves with ghetto walls. As a matter of fact thinking about the emerging walls they erect around themselves they are already acknowledging defeat.
MR: Persons such as Leah Tzemel and Juliano Mer Khamis have said that they at times feel that their work is used as a fig leaf to demonstrate that dissent is acceptable in Israel. Does this thought make sense to you and is it a danger that Israeli activists often face?
GA: For sure, this is the reason that I insist never to be presented as an Israeli, but rather as an Israeli born, ex Israeli, Ex Jew, Hebrew speaking Palestinian. Nothing but Israeli or Jew.
MR: You have often written that you respect Judaism as a religion, but reject it as an alibi for a political paradigm (“this land was promised to us and that gives us the right to it”). Yet, you are critical of aspects of the Jewish religion, such as the concept of chosenness. Do you think this religion can be reformed without endangering its basic tenets?
GA: Chosenness isn’t a Judaic concept but rather a clear Jewish misinterpretation of Judaism. Within the context of the Jewish religion being chosen is a heavy moral duty. Jews are chosen to stand as a symbol of supreme ethical behaviour. Saying that I am fully aware of the different outrageous Talmudic racist and immoral laws.
MR: Do you have political ambitions? You once half jokingly said you’d return to Israel once it became a united Palestine, and you’d be happy to serve in the Ministry of Culture. Sooner or later, politics is a siren song to many. Do you think it possible to participate in political life?
GA: No political ambitions here. When the time comes, I will come to Palestine to play my music to the Palestinian people.
MR: Jean Daniel has recently written in “The Jewish Prison” that Israel has maintained a ghetto mentality, which runs against a more modern concept of the idea of the cosmopolitan. Do you agree, and if so, is there a way to break out of this, or is it endemic in many aspects of Jewish culture and therefore a difficult situation to change?
GA: I agree, and as you may remember I dealt with it in Guide to the Perplexed. Gunther Wünker was called to Palestine to get the Jews out of the Ghetto. The emerging apartheid wall proves beyond doubt that Zionism failed categorically.
MR: Do you have any opinions on Abu Mazen, or predictions about the upcoming Palestinian elections?
GA: I am very interested to see the role of the Hamas.
MR: You have been away from Israel for a long time. Given that your children are still quite young, but obviously aware that Israel plays an important part in their parents’ lives, how do you recount Israel to your children?
GA: A year ago my daughter, seven years old at the time, had to reveal in class the origin of her parents, when it came to me she said: “my father is a kind of a Palestinian” I think that she got the message.
MR: What words do you think Israelis should say to Palestinians?
GA: They don’t have to say a thing, they had enough time to say, anyhow I would advise the Palestinians not to listen.
MR: What words do you think Palestinians should say to Israelis?
GA: Just to repeat the same laconic message, no solution without the addressing the refugees issue and Jerusalem.
MR: Can Israel somehow redeem itself if it throws off Zionism? Or is redemption a Christian concept that is not transferable to a State founded upon Jewish principles?
GA: I think that you answered yourself.
MR: The conflicting views on how the Middle Eastern situation should be handled have traditionally had opposite readings between the Left and the Right. But, lately, it seems that both of them are moving towards a line of “moderation”. While not exactly a new frontier, do you think that a new focus should be made that does not counterpoise Left and Right, so that the discourse can be less sterile and more productive?
GA: I argue that left and right are dated concepts. I am interested in an authentic moral thinking, something that is not found amongst our contemporary politicians.
MR: Lev Grinberg has written about “Cultural Genocide” operated against the Palestinian people. Do you believe such a situation is possible, and if so, is there a way to stop it?
GA: For sure it is possible, the way to stop it is to stop Israel and to dry out the Israeli culture, to boycott Israeli academics and artists, to turn the Israelis into a cultural desert. We aren’t that far already.
MR: Are you satisfied with your accomplishments?
GA: I live in peace.
MR: What are your future projects?
GA: Every night I perform, every night I have to reinvent myself. My future project is my next concert.
Fonti : peacepalestine e Gli articoli apparsi originariamente su questo sito possono essere riprodotti liberamente,sia in formato elettronico che su carta, a condizione che
non si cambi nulla, che si specifichi la fonte - il sito web Kelebek http://www.kelebekler.com -
e che si pubblichi anche questa precisazione
Per gli articoli ripresi da altre fonti, si consultino i rispettivi siti o autori
e che si pubblichi anche questa precisazione
Per gli articoli ripresi da altre fonti, si consultino i rispettivi siti o autori
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento