By Gilad Atzmon


Gilad Atzmon جيلاد أتزمون گيلاد آتزمون

My piece “In Bed With Bibi” was published in English a few days ago. It was circulated and posted by a vast majority of Western dissent, online magazines. It has been praised by many and, as far as I am aware of, no one took the trouble to criticise or deconstruct the article.

Interestingly enough, two days ago, the Spanish translation of “In Bed With Bibi” was published online by Tlaxcala and reproduced by the Rebelión website. Within a few hours, all hell broke loose: Salvador López Arnal and Santiago Alba Rico were remarkably quick to criticize the piece. On the face of it, the meaning of it to me seems simple and positive. The Spanish-speaking left is still engaged in an intellectual and ideological debate.

I have now read both López Arnal and Alba Rico’s papers, and my response will be short and to the point. I am afraid that both Salvador and Santiago failed categorically in understanding my article.

To start with, in my piece, I refrain from taking either side of the debate. I am neither pro-Assad nor pro the ‘rebels’. I am not taking either side for two reasons.

First, I question the notion of ‘moral intervention’ and I ask, what would create an ethical ground for any form of intervention whatsoever? When is it right and when is it wrong to intervene? What is it that makes it right for ‘person A’, who lives in ‘place B’, to interfere with the reality of ‘person C’, who lives in ‘place D’? And if intervention can be justified ethically how do we distinguish between a Neocon’s call and a ‘righteous progressive’ one?

Second, I feel that the war we are witnessing in Syria is extraordinarily complicated. We should all remember that, in it’s early phase, it was led by non-violent Syrian protesters who were faced with the regime’s brutality. However, I believe that the situation on the ground has changed radically, and it is not the Syrian people or their interests that shape this conflict anymore. I think we are witnessing an odd alliance between Qatar, foreign mercenaries, the USA and Israel.

The question I am raising in my piece is simple:

How is it possible that some of our leading political scientists are blind to the devastating probability that their calls for intervention provide Israel with a green light to attack an Arab country?

I also feel that both López Arnal and Alba Rico have failed to answer this question. Instead they criticise my language and the manner in which I choose to deal with the term ‘allies’. In this respect, they are right, and I don’t choose my words to appease any readers. Quite the opposite, I much prefer to intrigue people to think critically, ethically and out of the box.

Also, I am interested in creating a vibrant discussion that may at last bring real change.

But, still it goes on further, because I am actually in a transition period, and don’t think any more in terms of ‘allies’ or ‘leagues’. I’m not an activist or a politician. I am a philosopher and an artist. My allies are truth and integrity. I don’t claim to know the truth, but I am allergic to ‘spinning the truth’ and ‘righteous spinning’ in particular.

I am guessing that López Arnal, and Alba Rico are offended by my recent writings and perhaps their instincts are correct. I am indeed drifting away, because I believe that the contemporary Western left – and its progressive discourse – is a complete disaster. It has failed on every possible front. It did not liberate the people of Palestine, and it engaged solely with diverting attention from the real issues. It has planted incorrect and misleading terminology in our midst, and it has subverted a metaphysical quest into issues of choseness, tribalism and Jewish power in particular.

If I am correct, my approach will certainly bring a change.

Read “In Bed With Bibi” by Gilad Atzmon

Read “Fallacies in an (improper) ‘critique’ by Gilad Atzmon”, by Salvador López Arnal

Read “Gilad Atzmon, Syria and the ‘chosen people’” by Santiago Alba Rico