Response
to 'Joseph Massad – The Language of Zionism'
May
9, 2010
Preamble
My
comment to Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor of Middle Eastern
Studies at Columbia University, made in May 2010 for his article “The
Language of Zionism” (PDF cached here)
on the now defunct website Palestinethinktank.com, is archived below.
It once again illustrates how the Palestinians have themselves become
a victim of their own narratives. They miss by a mile while the golem
is barely half a furlong from the finish line.
#
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org on May 9th, 2010 at 2:09:
On
the conclusion of the article:
"After
62 years of persistent Israeli colonialism of Palestine, unless
President Obama and Israeli leaders understand that colonialism is
war and anti-colonialism is peace and that the only viable state
project in the area would be one that encompasses all Palestinians
and Israeli Jews as equal citizens in it, whatever "peace plan"
they offer to the Palestinians will be nothing short of a war plan."
I
would add that Edward Said stated exactly the same thing in "The
Mirage of Peace", October 16, 1995 in The Nation: "These
two communities must be seen as equal to each other in rights and
expectations;"
The
fact that JM has to repeat it 15 years later and the reality on the
ground is orders of magnitude worse only indicts the "N"
among the Palestinians themselves. The "C" are rather
constant in their nature, since time immemorial.
First,
here is an Excerpt from Said:
"The
deep tragedy of Palestine is that a whole people, their history and
aspirations have been under comprehensive assault–not only by
Israel (with the United States) but also by the Arab governments and,
since Oslo, by Arafat….
I
do not pretend to have any quick solutions for the situation now
referred to as "the peace process," but I do know that for
the vast majority of Palestinian refugees, day laborers, peasants and
town and camp dwellers, those who cannot make a quick deal and those
whose voices are never heard, for them the process has made matters
far worse. Above all, they may have lost hope….
I
have been particularly disheartened by the role played in all this by
liberal Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Silence is not a
response, and neither is some fairly tepid endorsement of a
Palestinian state, with Israeli settlements and the army more or less
still there, still in charge. The peace process must be demystified
and spoken about plainly. Palestine/Israel is no ordinary bit of
geography; it is more saturated in religious, historical and cultural
significance than any place on earth. It is also now the place where
two peoples, whether they like it or not, live together tied by
history, war, daily contact and suffering. To speak only in
geopolitical clichés (as the Clinton Administration does) or
to speak about "separating" them (as Rabin does) is to call
forth more violence and degradation. These two communities must be
seen as equal to each other in rights and expectations; only from
such a beginning can justice then proceed."
-
### -
On
the central theme of the article, I would contend that Hitler had
exactly the same language semantics of Zionism for his Nazism; and
that the language of Zionism today is not any different from
America's own language of "American Peace" employed by both
PNAC in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and by Brzezinski
in "American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives".
Here
are some pertinent excerpts:
“Hegemony
is as old as mankind. … The earlier empires were built by
aristocratic political elites and were in most cases ruled by
essentially authoritarian or absolutist regimes. The bulk of the
populations of the imperial states were either politically
indifferent, … or infected by imperialist emotions …a
quest for national glory, 'the white man's burden', 'la mission
civilisatrice', not to speak of the opportunities for personal profit
– all served to mobilize support for imperial adventures to
sustain essentially hierarchical imperial power pyramids. The
attitude of American public toward the external projection of
American power has been more ambivalent. … Public opinion
polls conducted in 1995 – 1996 indicated a general public
preference for 'sharing' power with others, rather than for its
monopolistic exercise. … It is also a fact that America is too
democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of
America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. …
Public opinion polls suggest that only a small minority (13 percent)
of Americans favor the proposition that 'as the sole remaining
superpower, the US should continue to be the preeminent world leader
in solving international problems'. … Moreover, as America
becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more
difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in
the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threat. …. More generally, cultural change in America
may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely
imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal
motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. …
In brief, the U.S. Policy goals must be un-apologetically twofold: to
perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation
and preferably longer, … the ultimate objective of American
policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative
global community.” (Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard)
“As
long as wars and other military operations derive their logic from
political purposes, land power will remain the truly decisive form of
military power. … In sum the ability to preserve American
military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on
the ability to operate in space militarily. … But over the
long term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the
application of force both in space and from space, including but not
limited to antimissile defenses … Cyberspace, or 'Net-War' If
outerspace represents an emerging medium of warfare, then
“cyberspace”, and in particular the internet hold similar
promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of
cyberspace and the internet are emerging elements of global commerce,
politics and powerplay. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally
must take account of this other new “global commons”. …
there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny
America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze
either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks.
Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military
and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in
a decisive manner. Taken together, the prospects for space and
“cyberspace war” represent the truly revolutionary
potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These
future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure.
But, it is also clear that for the U.S. Armed forces to remain
preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power
they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor
America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United
States military dominance. Until the process of transformation is
treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of constant
allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn. …
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”
(PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses pages 51-61)
“The
Price of American Preeminence: The program we advocate – one
that would provide America with forces to meet the strategic demands
of the world's sole superpower – requires budget levels to be
increased to 3.5 to 3.8 percent of the GDP… We believe it is
necessary to increase slightly the personnel strength of U.S. Forces
– many of the missions associated with patrolling the expanding
American security perimeter are manpower-intensive, and planning for
major theater wars must include for politically decisive campaigns …
Also this expanding perimeter argues for new overseas bases and
forward operating locations to facilitate American political and
military operations around the world. … Keeping the American
peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad array of
missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but
there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising
American leadership and the benevolent order it secures.” (PNAC
Rebuilding America's Defenses pages 74-76)
“[...]
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the
challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military
investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by
past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending,
inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are
making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around
the world.
[...]
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan
Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet
both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and
purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
[...]
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and extending an international order friendly to our
security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy
of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today.
But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes
of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in
the next.”
[...]
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom
abroad;” (PNAC Statement of Principles)
Just
look at the last sentences of the passages, and words like 'moral
clarity' and 'political and economic freedom abroad', to reflect the
benevolence of hegemony in the language of 'American peace' and the
'benevolent order it secures.':
"the
ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary:
to shape a truly cooperative global community"
"Keeping
the American peace requires the U.S. Military to undertake a broad
array of missions today and rise to very different challenges
tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without
compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it
secures."
Are
they much different from the language of Zionism?
I
am too lazy to dig out my William Shirer or the Nuremberg
transcripts. It is too well known that Hitler perfected the mantra of
"preemptive war" for maintaining the "German peace"
in his extended Lebensraum.
I
contend that the Palestinain elite's psychological cataracts cannot
be due to mere language mis-translation of the "language of
Zionism" – that language resemantification is quite
standard fare, and "as old as mankind". And
"Colonialism is peace; anti-colonialism is war" has
been the language of all ubermensch since time immemorial.
Zionism didn't invent it. I find the following unraveling of it which
is almost 1600 years old and surely none is unfamiliar with it,
revealing:
“When
the King asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate
defiantly replied: 'the same as you do when you infest the whole
world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber,
and because you do it with a great fleet, you are an emperor.' ”
(The City of God against the Pagans, Page 148).
What
the commonality in the aforementioned excerpts also show is that the
struggle against Zionism is futile by itself. The struggle against
the ubermenschen's penchance for Lebensraum needs to be both
understood and waged in the context of the singular noun "Hectoring
Hegemon" to be effective. If people can only comprehend
that, then the hectoring hegemon's common shared agenda, and
common prime-movers: the common financiers and common thinkers,
automatically come into focus.
The
Zionist enemy is aided and abetted by an "invisible force"
today as a crucial link in a chain of the quest for "full
spectrum dominance" for a "Zion that will light up
all the world", and that's the real problem of beleagured
Palestine.
A
problem of accurate diagnosis.
Not
a problem of mis-translating a language that is as old as empire.
A
problem not even touched upon by JM.
Nor
by any of the other prominent Palestinian intellectuals.
Why?
Zahir
Ebrahim
Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
-
### -
Source
URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-language-of-zionism-massad.html
