Daniel Cohen\u00a0 (fictitious name) is deeply admired by many. He is a humanist, an anti Zionist and he is also a\u00a0man of great integrity.\u00a0 A week ago, Daniel decided to challenge my views, and launched a courageous debate. Being a gracious man he might have hoped\u00a0to open my eyes to some \u2018categorical mistakes\u2019 he believed I was making.\u00a0 For\u00a0my part, I was very open to his criticism and engaged in the dialogue.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel was not happy with the way the exchange has evolved. Though he circulated his comments\u00a0and my interventions to his close Jewish friends, he made it clear that he wanted to stop the exchange at a certain stage.\u00a0 Daniel was very angry with me.\u00a0 He also made it clear that he did not want me to publish the exchange of views.\u00a0 As I always do in such cases, I suggested that together, we should edit the debate, but he refused.\u00a0 Respecting Daniel\u2019s request for anonymity, I have now\u00a0re-edited the text myself, concealing \u00a0Daniel\u2019s real name,\u00a0 removing all sections and biographical references that could reveal Daniel\u2019s identity. Occasionally, I have re-phrased Daniel\u2019s comments for purpose of continuity and clarity, but I have faithfully retained his meaning.*<\/span><\/p>\n Unlike Daniel, I believe that issues to do with Jewish history and Jewish ideology must be discussed openly and without fear.<\/span><\/p>\n Questions You Should Never Raise<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Daniel Cohen<\/strong>: Dear Gilad, we certainly share many ideas and thoughts. We both oppose Zionism and Israeli policies,\u00a0however,\u00a0rather,\u00a0 too often, you fail to be careful enough with\u00a0 your formulations, and this gives room for\u00a0 some\u00a0 misunderstandings.\u00a0 You seem to challenge some issues to do with the Holocaust, and history in general. It seems to me as\u00a0if, often enough,\u00a0you raise questions to which\u00a0various sufficient answers already exist.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad Atzmon<\/strong>: I can already tell you, at this stage, that I have a slight problem with\u00a0your approach. To start with, as a philosopher, I am far more interested in the art of asking questions. I leave the \u2018answers\u2019 to politicians. Moreover,\u00a0the relationship between questions and\u00a0answers\u00a0is paradigmatically oriented. A sufficient \u2018answer\u2019 within one paradigm\u00a0 (or discourse) may as well be totally inadequate\u00a0or irrelevant\u00a0within another -a certain \u2018answer\u2019 within \u00a0Aristotelian physics may well be within the realm of the inexpressible\u00a0 within a \u2018Newtonian\u2019 paradigm.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>:\u00a0 If you ask, for instance,\u00a0why were the Jews repeatedly hated in so many places along their history, as you do in some of your texts, you create room for anti-Semites who may say it is because they are intrinsically evil.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: To start with, as a thinking being full of curiosity, I do not take instructions from anti Semites or Zionists or Jewish anti Zionist campaigners. I instead follow my instincts and go along with my sincere ethically driven truth-seeking adventure. Also, I believe that the answer you attributed to anti Semites can be easily addressed. Jews cannot be \u2018intrinsically evil\u2019 because Jews do not form a racial or ethnic continuum. Any racial attribution to Jews is clearly wrong and silly.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: I actually do not agree with your approach.\u00a0\u00a0 The appropriate answer\u00a0to the above question is that in the Middle Ages Jews were barred from many professions except money trade and peddling, two professions which could easily arouse disdain and hate.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: Dear Daniel, with all due respect, such an answer is far from being sufficient. In Europe at least, Jews have been emancipated since\u00a0the French Revolution. By the end of the 19th century most European Jews enjoyed equal rights.\u00a0 And yet, something went\u00a0 horribly wrong in the 1920s-30\u2019s. Our duty then, is to understand, what was it? Why did it happen? Why do Jews encounter resentment all too often and in many different places?<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know whether you are aware of it, but the reasoning you suggest here is very similar to the Early Zionist mantra. <\/span>Borchov<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, and <\/span>Katznelson<\/span><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0 were also convinced that Diaspora conditions were responsible for \u2018Jewish deformed cultural identity\u2019. They believed that on a land of their own, Jews would be able to re-invent themselves and become \u2018people like other peoples\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n As you and I agree, Zionism is a complete disaster. The Jews are hated in the Middle East. And as <\/span>Shahid Alam<\/span><\/strong><\/a> suggests, Zionism did not really solve the Jewish question; it only re-located it in a new place (Zion).<\/span><\/p>\n The answer to the question is actually very simple; as long as Jews operate politically, culturally and socially\u00a0within exclusive racially oriented cells, be it Israel, Zionism, Jewish \u2018anti\u2019 Zionist networks or even \u2018Jews only\u2019 football clubs , they will encounter problems.<\/span><\/p>\n But let us go back to issues of whether some \u2018questions that should never be raised\u2019. For me,\u00a0to be in the world is to live through changes, to allow meaning to be in flux and to let ourselves be transformed accordingly. I could never accept the Idea that some questions have sufficient and firm answers. In fact, I oppose any form of dogmatism.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But, in your text \u2018Truth, History & Integrity\u2019 you go as far as asking \u201cwhy Auschwitz\u2019s (Jewish) prisoners didn\u2019t wait for the Red Army ?\u201d Do you think that this is an appropriate question to ask?<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: Sorry\u00a0Daniel. I have to stop you there, I believe that in order to address this quote, I must first re-locate my words in the right order, and within the appropriate\u00a0context. In my paper \u2018Truth, History & Integrity\u2019[1]\u00a0 I quote Israeli Holocaust historian Israel Gutman, who suggests that\u00a0 Auschwitz prisoners (or at least some of them)\u00a0 joined the Death March voluntarily (\u201cI then decided to join [the march] with all the other inmates and to share their fate\u201d )[2]. Following Gutman\u2019s quote, I then presented the\u00a0following inference:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIf the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn\u2019t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n What we see above is a clear inference (rather than a mere question). It seems to me that it is there to suggest that further research is needed. As opposed to the historian who searches for a narrative, as a philosopher, I am there to question\u00a0what\u00a0the word \u2018narrative\u2019 actually stands for, or in Kantian terms — what are the conditions of the possibility of a historical narrative.\u00a0 In my relevant paper, I do not attempt to provide an answer — I am not an historian.\u00a0 My primary issue is concerned with the freedom to wander\/wonder,\u00a0and to raise possible dilemmas without being terrorised by the \u2018Holocaust censorship police\u2019 or any other form of thought dictatorship.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But, can\u2019t you see that with such a manner of behaviour you provide Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites with ammunition? They can so easily misuse your words.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: Dear Daniel, I do understand your concern, but with all due respect, I have been writing for some years now, and, as far as I am aware,\u00a0anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers do not seem to misuse my words. I have been quoted by some so-called anti Semites, some of whom liked me, whilst others hated me, but they\u00a0appear to quote my ideas within context and seem to be faithful to the original meaning and intention of my writing.<\/span><\/p>\n But — let me tell you, I have seen many\u00a0Zionists and \u2018anti\u2019 Zionists\u00a0 systematically misquoting me, misrepresenting me, forging my statements, and taking my words out of context, all willfully done to create the most awful impression of my work.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But let\u2019s return to your earlier statement — can\u2019t you see that the inference you are making\u00a0here is that Auschwitz\u00a0was not a death factory, which to me, comes near to denial.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0 No, I do not agree with such an interpretation of my words. In my article, you will notice that I refrain from suggesting any answer.\u00a0 I would argue instead that raising the right questions is far more important than repeating the \u2018right\u2019 answers. The same applies to the 911 Truth Movement. Whether someone manages to come up with the right explanation of this peculiar chain of events is one issue, the fact that so many people suspect and challenge the official narrative is clearly a revelation or at least very positive sign.\u00a0\u00a0 Furthermore, I also find the notion of \u2018denial\u2019 rather problematic. Instead of denial, I would prefer\u00a0 to emphasise the fundamental and ethically grounded right to revise, re-visit and re-view.\u00a0\u00a0 I believe that to be tolerant is to agree not to agree, and also to respect others when we don\u2019t agree.<\/span><\/p>\n Jews, Judaism & Jewishness<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>:\u00a0 I want to say that I am also troubled with your attitude towards Judaism and Jewish religion.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: Actually, you will notice when you read my work that I tend to avoid dealing with the Judaism (the religion), and I also avoid discussing Jewish people as an ethnic or racial group — instead, I prefer to elaborate on \u2018Jewishness\u2019, Jewish ideology and Jewish political identity.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But for me, there is no such a thing as \u2018Jewishness\u2019 — there is only Zionist Ideology. I do not accept at all the notion of Jewish ideology or Jewish political identity.\u00a0I am only willing to deal with the Zionist political identity.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: I am absolutely fine with that \u2013 I am familiar with, and respect your views, which are common amongst Jewish anti Zionists. Unfortunately, my way of \u2018perceiving the universe\u2019 is somewhat more complex and I am far from being\u00a0 proud of what I see.\u00a0It seems to me that you are missing\u00a0a crucial aspect of the whole debate \u2013 You do not seem to realise that\u00a0 Zionism is just part of the problem. The notion of Zionism no longer actually means very much to Israelis anymore. Hence it falls short of explaining Israeli collective barbarism. Once Israel was founded, the Zionist dream had fulfilled itself. Zionism is now largely a Jewish Diaspora discourse, and therefore, falls short of explaining Israeli politics and Israeli brutality in particular.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Israel defines itself as the \u2018Jewish State\u2019, and it drops bombs on innocent civilians from airplanes\u00a0that are clearly and unambiguously decorated with Jewish symbols. Israel commits horrendous crimes\u2014\u2018in the name of the<\/span><\/p>\n Jewish people\u2019. In \u2018my universe\u2019 then,\u00a0I am more than entitled to ask what Jewishness stands for, and I repeat, that Zionism is just one manifestation of Jewishness.<\/span><\/p>\n The next stage is surely to define what Jewishness is all about.<\/span><\/p>\n I say again, that in my writing I differentiate between \u2018Jews\u2019 \u2013the people, Judaism–the religion, and Jewishness the ideology. I avoid the first two categories almost entirely, and I focus on Jewish ideology. I admit that such an approach issue can lead occasionally to some misinterpretations \u2013 but as far as I am able, I do try to be clear about it, as much as I can.<\/span><\/p>\n I do not consider the Jews to be a race, and yet it is obvious that \u2018Jewishness\u2019 clearly involves an ethno centric and racially supremacist, exclusivist point of view that is based on a sense of Jewish \u2018chosen-ness\u2019.\u00a0 Zionism too, is a clear manifestation of such an ideology. But, tragically enough, the Jewish Left happens to be of a very similar tendency. Like Zionists, the Jewish Left are also interested in notions of being \u2018racially\u2019 or ethnically exclusive.\u00a0 For instance, Hamed from Gaza would not be able to settle in Tel Aviv — but surprisingly enough, he may also find it very problematic to join IJV (independent Jewish voice) or \u2018Jews for peace in Palestine\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But you have to bear in mind that in sharp contrast with the multifaceted religion of Judaism,\u00a0Zionism is completely monolithic in that it can be defined as having just one single goal: maximum surface in Palestine (for the Jews) with the minimum number of Palestinians on it.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: I am sorry but here again, I find myself in a slight disagreement with you. Zionism and political Zionism are dynamic movements, and subject to constant metamorphic changes. They\u00a0change their goal all the time. It is even very difficult to define what is the \u2018exact\u2019 role of Zionism after Israel has been founded.\u00a0\u00a0 I think that your definition of Zionism is basically a very good description of Israeli policy (\u201cmaximum of surface in Palestine with the minimum number of Palestinians on it\u201d). However, and I re-emphasise, Zionism should now be considered to be largely a Diaspora discourse.\u00a0 It means very little if anything at all to the Israelis.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Zionists cannot even decide whether they want to schlep<\/em> world Jewry to Zion, or to leave them in the Galut<\/em>\u00a0 (Diaspora) so they can campaign for Israel forever.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But wouldn\u2019t\u00a0 you agree that Zionism is\u00a0 chauvinistic, racist, expansionist and colonialist?\u00a0 It is imperative to be very careful in distinguishing between the words Judaism and Zionism.<\/span><\/p>\n GA: I largely agree with the above. However,\u00a0in my work I never tie the two together. Yet, I do allow myself to argue that if Israel defines itself as the \u2018Jewish State\u2019 we must surely be entitled to wonder what Jewishness stands for.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Holocaust religion vs. Judaism. \u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: Gilad, you write about\u00a0 Holocaust religion. Yet again, in very sharp contrast to Holocaust religion,\u00a0 Judaism has taught the world how to differ in opinion and how to debate. Judaism is non-dogmatic and since the destruction of the second Temple everyone over 13 years of age is entitled to take part in debate and discussion, provided he has good arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong> : I am not so sure that I agree with you here. In theory you may be right, that on the face of it,\u00a0 the Talmud is indeed part of an open debate and a search for conclusive and rational ruling. However, there is another aspect to Rabbinical\u00a0 thinking, and that is the notion of Herem (ex-communication) to give just one example. Rabbinical Judaism is very dogmatic and extremely intolerant towards\u00a0 dissidence. The cases of Spinoza ex communication and the brutality towards <\/span>Uriel Da Costa<\/span><\/strong><\/a> seem to be to be crucial for an understanding of Judaism . I want to remind you that Israeli PM Rabin was assassinated\u00a0 following a Halacha ruling (Din Rodef).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: However, Holocaust religion is \u00a0the opposite. It is very dogmatic and forbids practically any discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: I obviously agree with you here, but given your opinion here, then I would expect you to support me asking all\u00a0those earlier questions that to me, appear to be totally legitimate.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But surely you agree that you cannot debate\u00a0 with people who deny the\u00a0 Holocaust as a historical fact. And why should one raise questions where answers are already known to all?<\/span><\/p>\n GIlad<\/strong>: Dear Daniel, I would prefer to engage in a preliminary discussion here. I think we should be careful in the way we use the word \u2018fact\u2019. A given Historical chapter is not solely a fact but a\u00a0narrative composed of many ingredients such as: facts, personal testimonies, prose, culture, emotional contents and so on. The narrative is the mortar that bonds all the different ingredients by means of reasoning. \u00a0It allocates events with meaning and direction. This\u00a0applies to the Napoleonic wars as much as it does to\u00a0 the\u00a0 Holocaust, or indeed, any other historical chapter.\u00a0 The Holocaust should not be regarded solely as a rigid set of \u2018facts\u2019 but rather as a very complicated historical narrative, a compound of very many things including facts (of course). \u00a0I believe that once we allow the Holocaust to be treated as a historical narrative rather than a religion or a \u2018fact\u2019, none of us would\u00a0be under the impression that every doubt may endanger the entire historical narrative or even our existence[3]. For me, openness and integrity\u00a0when we study historical events is far more important than any ideology or a given\u00a0party line.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: I could not disagree more. History is indeed very complex but past historical research has given us quite a good picture and understanding of what actually happened in Europe between 1933-1945.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: Daniel, you are a very educated man, \u00a0 would you allow yourself to say the same thing about science? Would you dare saying \u201cChemistry has given us quite a good picture of what is happening in the world, so we may put an end to our research right here\u201d? I don\u2019t think so. And this is where integrity comes into the picture.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel<\/strong>: But , surely you see that to reduce the Holocaust into a narrative or even a number of narratives is a personal insult to every Jew.<\/span><\/p>\n Gilad<\/strong>: OK I can see where is the problem here. In fact,\u00a0 I do not \u2018reduce the holocaust into a narrative\u2019,\u00a0 because every historical chapter is a narrative.\u00a0 The Nakba is a narrative, Zionism is a narrative, and the Napoleonic Wars is a narrative. Narrative is not a secondary quality<\/strong>. \u00a0Narrative is the attempt to string (factual)\u00a0 events into a story with a direction and reason. The narrative furnishes the fact with sense. The Narrative is actually a dynamic notion. It allows us to shape and revise our vision of the past as we proceed in time. The Nakba, for instance, was hardly discussed in Western media until recently. Do you know why? Because we are now understanding the 1948 Zionist\u00a0 crime through our current notion of Israeli brutality. This is the true meaning of historical thinking; we move forward and backward. This is the deep meaning\u00a0 of\u00a0 the narrative and this is also the meaning of temporality-\u2018to be in time\u2019.\u00a0 We are subject to constant changes.<\/span><\/p>\n The past becomes a meaningful event once it reflects on our present and future. The past becomes a vivid form of knowledge when it conveys a prospect of a better future, when it becomes as elastic as the now and \u2018things to come\u2019.\u00a0 In order to achieve such a goal we must allow ourselves\u00a0 to visit,\u00a0 re-visit and re-vise our visions of the past as we move along forward towards the unknown (future).<\/span><\/p>\n For me the meaning of temporality is the free bouncing between past and future, between the memory and the unknown.\u00a0Any attempt to seal a chapter in our past, is for me, an attempt against humanity. I will never support such an approach and I understand that this is enough to make me a hate figure in the Jewish world. I can take it.<\/span><\/p>\n Daniel: \u00a0I am very displeased with the result of our discussion. It has led nowhere, and I am saddened by it.<\/span><\/p>\n G: I think that I understand your frustration. However, unlike you, I actually think that this was an amazing discussion especially because we do not agree. I myself have learned a lot.<\/span><\/p>\n on <\/span>Amazon.com <\/span><\/a>\u00a0or <\/span>Amazon.co.uk<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n * Ahead of publication, I sent the exchange to Daniel. This exchange is published with his consent.<\/span>\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/Palestine-Israel-Germany-and-the-boundaries-of-open-discussion.jpg\" "\\"Palestine,")
<\/span><\/a>(If you are interested in freedom of speech and open discourse, you may want to attend \u00a0 <\/span>Caf\u00e9 Palestine Freiburg\u2019s conference<\/span><\/a>– on Sunday, 11th of September 2011 we will run a full day of discussion featuring some of today\u2019s leading thinkers and activists. We plan to elaborate on\u00a0 \u2018Palestine, Israel, Germany-The Boundaries of Open Discussion\u2019. It is promised to be a very interesting day. For more information please click <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>. For Facebook\u2019s event page please click <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/span><\/a>You can now pre-order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n