Amos Oz sat på plads

Danske aviser er blandt dem, der svælger i myten om den “progressive” og “forsonlige” israelske forfatter Amos Oz, som – hans forfatterskabs litterære kvaliteter ufortalt – gerne markedsføres som et eksempel på en “progressiv” israeler, der “vil araberne det godt”, en eksponent for en israelsk “fredslejr”, hvis omfang ganske uhæmmet overdrives.

Ved at acceptere denne rolle kommer Amos Oz ret beset til at fungere som en legitimering af de sidste mange års nådesløse bosættelses- og besættelsespolitik, en slags jernnæve med et menneskeligt ansigt. Måske derfor, at reelle kritikere som Gideon Levy og Amira Hass tilsyneladende nægter at indtage en sådan position.

En mere ligefrem karakteristik af Amos Oz finder vi hos As’ad AbuKhalil, den vrede araber:

They want to make of Amos Oz a friend of the Arabs, by force. They want to crown him a king of peace. Those who included a secret clause about normalization with Israel in the Thomas Friedman-Abdullah initiative, they rush to try and vainly influence the political culture of the Arab world. Al-Saud liberal princes enthusiastically promote Amos Oz and his counterparts. They believe him to be a symbol of the “Israeli peace” camp. They try to convince the Arab people of the rightness of Zionism in their midst. That is their desire.

Amos Oz is a lie. And this lie is a part of a bigger lie about the “Israeli peace camp”. The lie was invented by Arafat’s team (led by Mahmoud Abbas at the time) in the seventies to justify the scrambling behind the freak of a Palestinian mini-nation, surrender to the enemy and to toss the arms very far away. Israeli commentator Gideon Levy exposed them recently in “Haaretz” when he said: “The Israeli peace camp didn’t die. It was never born in the first place”. There is no Israeli peace camp. All of this was a fabricated propaganda by normalization Arabs to convince the Arab people that they need to stop the resistance. And Amos Oz is dear to the heart of Western liberals. They honour him sometimes too much for his own liking. He roams and moans in front of an audience that observes the movement of his eyelids. He mentions the Holocaust in a sentence and the Palestinian “terrorism” in the next one.

I saw Amos Oz in 1992 in America. I was at the beginning of my teaching career at “Colorado College”. Oz was invited to deliver a public lecture. They came from all over the state to see him. Liberals flocked in the hundreds. I sat in an unobtrusive back seat and I could hear their moaning, and I felt the pain: I could almost hear the audience reach their climax. How grave my exile felt on that long day. I remember that only one British student understood my suffering. She sat next to me and said sympathetically even before Oz started talking: “What’s wrong? I read the expressions of your face”. I said: “If Mahmoud Darwish came to this university, none of these people would show up”. She said: “Don’t be unfair to me”. I was unfair to that student. Then Oz proceeded with a speech that he never tires of repeating in his articles and lectures. I grew more annoyed. I felt suffocated. I remember I kept reciting to myself what poems I memorized about Palestine: even that annoying poem of “Al-Akhtal As-Sagheer” (“The desert came alive complaining its nakedness, then we engulfed it with roar and smoke”, while the Arab armies were reluctant to fight, or were shooting at each other). Amos Oz captured the neediness of the audience. I almost burst. He bragged that he was never non-violent, and that he was proud of his fighting in the army of the enemy in the different wars. And then he invoked the Holocaust (as the Zionists always do and as does Ahmadinejad) in his speech, and he spoke of the signs of the collapse of the Nazi society, and how it started with the abuse of the language. They applauded him long in a standing ovation. Then came my turn, or rather, I stole a turn. I stood up and faced the audience, not him (in my unequivocal commitment to boycotting the enemy), without an invitation from anyone, except from Iyad Noureddine Al-Moudawwar, my martyr and my comrade. I said: he talked to you about the abuse of language but he did not know that I was counting the times where he attached the word Palestinian with the word terrorist in the sequence of his phrases: more than 27 times in full. And isn’t that of the indicators to the collapse of Israeli society and its aggressive intentions? And I asked them about terrorism: I told them about Israeli terrorism in 1982 and my eyewitness accounts of it, and how the enemy’s army killed more children than any organization which is classified by U.S. as “terrorist”, and then I concluded by mocking the honouring of his ilk in America. Oz came to me and tried to shake my hand – this is one of their games trying to appear as pacifist in front of the Western public – I got up from my chair and left the room. […]

Reading, any reading, is of course useful, in any language and of anyone. And brilliance (in music, art or philosophy) might come from political enemies (Wagner, Bob Dylan, Hannah Arendt, Martin Buber, Frank Sinatra). And the feat writer Albert Camus who cannot be ignored, was sympathetic to the French occupation of Algeria (David Carroll’s new book, “Albert Camus The Algerian” published by Columbia University, will not save the reputation of the man). But there is the principle of absolute boycott. The translation of Oz’s works in “Dar Al Jamal” or the publication of a book of Abba Eban in Dar-es-Saqi mean a financial contribution in support of the soldiers and institutions of the usurping entity. These get a commission on their books. I saw, for example, the film «Waltz with Bashir», but I was keen to acquire a pirated copy (Seek the movie even if from China), so as not to support the Zionist entity (even though my taxes here in America go, to my pain, to support the entity). The Piracy and online publishing of the mentioned books is possible if you’re keen to read Oz. I will own copies of Hebrew literature, and I will read them on the balcony of a house in the village of Galilee on a red and green bed, but after the liberation of all Palestine, and not before.

Link: Translation of my article on Amos Oz

AlJazeera – Mellemøstens New York Times.

As’ad Abukhalil alias Angry Arab har et interessant indlæg om AlJazeera og deres store og i hans øjne journalistisk velfortjente indflydelse i den arabiske verden:

Politics aside, AlJazeera Arabic is an excellent channel. Forget about all the political biases that afflict all news media, Aljazeera makes more effort to check in political biases than mainstream US media, like the New York Times. To compare Al-Arabiyya with AlJazeera is like comparing Muhammad Dahlan with Nelson Mandela. The comparison in itself is unfair to both sides.

The other day, I kept AlJazeera on for a while working out and I was most impressed with the depth and scope of its international coverage. I mean, they would have a report from the US and then they would interview some Arabic speaker about some aspect of US politics, and then they would move to the elections in Mauritania, and on and on. If you switch while watching AlJazeera, you are most like to see a long and tedious report on Michael Jackson on Al-Arabiyya TV (the station of King Fahd’s brother-in-law).

Yesterday, AlJazeera was on and they had a flash about shooting outside of the Capital in DC. I switched to Fox New and they did not have anything on the matter for five long minutes. Don’t get me wrong: I have my own criticism of AlJazeera and wrote about them here. But it is all relative: if I am to pick a newscast in any language that I can understand, I would not hesitate to select AlJazeera “mid-day” newscast. There is nothing like it: and the BBC which I used to like has been deteriorating and mimicking US network, albeit with more dignity.

The reason I write about all this is the war between the tyrannical regime of Abu Mazen and Aljazeera. As you all know, the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime shut down AlJazeera offices (and I am glad that the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the closure). But you need to read the Orwellian official statement that was issued by Salam Fayyad (the same guy who was dubbed “reformer” because he strictly follows orders from the World Bank and from Elliott Abrams). The statement justified the closure in the name of “the Supreme Palestinian interest”. The language used was the same as that used by Saddam Husayn’s regime or the regime of Enver Hoxa. It was classic terminology of tyranny. And it was quite amusing to see the PA talk about biases of Aljazeera when the blatant pro-Dahlan bias of Al-Arabiyya TV is admired by the same collaborationist regime. Azmi Bisharah spoke very well on the matter on Al-Jazeera yesterday: he said that the closure should be analyzed in terms the growing tryannical powers of the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime. He also reminded viewers that the Abu Mazen regime acts very much like the tyrannical Arab regimes and that its behavior during the Israeli terrorist war on Gaza was symptomatic: even public demonstration of sympathy with the people of Gaza were banned by the collaborationist regime.

I recently spoke to a colleague who teaches at a universtiy in the West Bank: she described to me the behavior of the Dahlan gangs during the protests in solidarity with Gaza. She said that the oppression and repression in the West Bank has become quite effective. She watched as Dahlan gangsters/army moves to beat up and quickly overpower each demonstrator by himself/herself. She said that people are now afraid to speak out. As Azmi Bisharah said yesterday, the West Bank office of AlJazeera only hosts Fath propagandists because the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime only allows voices of support for the regime. It is fair to say that the Abu Mazen collaborationist regime has decided after the last parliamentary election to rule by force, and by force along. This is why they are now so upset with Faruq Qaddumi: because he is the most senior Fath person and represents dissent within the movement. Why did I title this post “The Revenge of AlJazeera”? Well, because you better not launch war on AlJazeera: they can really sway Arab public opinion more than Hasan Nasrallah and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi combined.

Jeg har tilladt mig selv at indsætte afsnit i teksten. Det gør selvfølgelig også godt at læse As’ads befriende åbenhjertige beskrivelse af Abu Mazens Quislingestyre i Ramallah. Det er lige før, man ærgrer sig over ikke at forstå arabisk, så man ikke selv kan følge AlJazeeras dækning.

Link: The Revenge of AlJazeera: on its war with the Abu Mazen’s collaborationist regime