Jazz and Jihad: The Discourse on Solidarity

[Lois Gilbert]

Jazz and Jihad: The Discourse on Solidarity


For many years I considered America as my promised land. As a young jazz musician I was pretty convinced that sooner or later I would end up living in New York City. My Jerusalem was Downtown Manhattan and of course my holy scriptures were the old Blue Note vinyls. My Rabbis were named Coltrane, Bird, Miles, Duke, Dizzy, Bill Evans and naturally, there were many others. I was convinced of this reality for a while, and in fact, it took time before I realized that jazz was far more than mere music. It took a while before I gathered that jazz was something else, that it was actually a form of resistance. Nowadays I realize that jazz is no different from Jihad. Accordingly, playing jazz is my personal Jihad. I do grasp that some people in this room may already find my ideas nostalgic, some may even be convinced that I am either totally deluded or just out of my mind. I can live with it. I do realize that ‘things have changed’, they’ve changed for you as much as they’ve changed for me. I do realize that jazz is not exactly a form of resistance anymore. May I mention that America isn’t my promised land either. In fact, at the time of writing this talk, I wasn’t even sure whether I would be allowed entry into your country. As much as jazz, the classical music of America, has been a call for freedom, America is not a free place anymore. I often argue that before liberating others, it is the American people who should first liberate themselves. I am pretty sure that sooner or later they will.

I have been participating in some public debates lately concerning the common denominator between Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m glad to mention that it is rather noticeable that more and more people are now happy to admit what some of us realized years ago. The Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghanis are paying a very dear price for the Ziocentric shift within the Anglo-American decision-makers circuit. Seemingly, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are just the aperitif for an endless feast. The Ziocons have some big appetite to satisfy. The same lobbies that led America towards this disastrous invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan are now doing whatever they can to push America towards intervention in Iran and Syria. For those few who still fail to realize it, America has been operating officially as an Israeli mission force. It currently fights the last sovereign pockets of Muslim resistance.

Often enough, the true aim of the Zionist lobbies is concealed. Instead the Zionist lobbies promote some righteous phony humanitarian alternatives. The American Jewish Committee (AJC), for instance, is aggressively lobbying against human rights abuse in Iran and Darfur. Since human rights issues are really close to my heart, I find myself wondering whether the Jewish organization shouldn’t rather be concentrating on the colossal war crimes that are daily repeated by Israel in Palestine. Rather occasionally we read about AIPAC equating Iran and Syria with Nazi Germany. Again, someone should remind the Zionist lobbyists that actually it is Israel, the “Jews Only State”, that happens to be the one and only ideological remnant of racist nationalism.

Three weeks ago the Palestine Chronicle made an on-line poll. It asked the following question: Does the Israel Lobby control US policy on the Middle East?’ Needless to mention, no one would even have dared raising such a question five years ago. Now this question is asked repeatedly and as it seems, people aren’t shying off from telling what they really think. 80 percent said yes, 15 percent said no, and 4 percent were not sure. Looking at these results points to the reality many want us to deny. The vast majority of English-speaking Palestinians, Palestinian solidarity campaigners and anti-war activists are now ready to admit that the Israel Lobby controls US policy in the Middle East. We are ready to accept the fact that America operates as an Israeli mission force. America straightens the line with Israeli interests and sacrifices its sons and daughters maintaining Israeli regional hegemony.

But here is an interesting twist. I do not intend to talk to you about Zionised America. I want to believe that the majority of Palestinian supporters and anti-war activists in this room know far more about it than me. I would like to try taking the discussion further. I would like to elaborate on the notion of solidarity and empathy.

Those who are familiar with my writings know that I am not exactly a political scientist. I am not interested in politics and I am even far less interested in politicians who, generally speaking, evoke nothing but a strong sense of repulsion in me.

Rather than politics per se, it is humanity and the notion of humanism that I am interested in. Often I find myself wondering what being in the world may entail. And I better admit it; I am puzzled by the fact that as a society, as a collective bunch of individuals, we have managed to continuously fail to act for the people of Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan. I think that this very collective failure is in itself an alarming message. Thus, rather than looking into the crimes committed by Blair, Bush and the Ziocons, I am becoming gradually interested in the general Western apathy. To be more precise, I would argue that the common denominator between Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is our collective indifference to a crime that is committed on our behalf and in our names.

As some of us may remember, in the days leading to the doomed illegal invasion of Iraq, the anti-war movement was extremely successful in mobilizing millions of people into protest. We saw them in every capital. They were calling Blair and Bush to withdraw their military plans. Millions of people questioned the sickening Anglo-American intelligence hoax. We could all see through the lies, we could all foresee the emerging crime, we were outraged, and we were convinced that we were doing the right thing. Yet, strangely enough, just four years later, with hundreds of thousands dead, with millions of casualties, with many millions of displaced people. When it is clear that everything went as wrong as it possibly could, when it is openly established that “the danger of Iraq’s WMDs” was nothing but a lie, not very many care about it all anymore. Now when the grim prophecy turns into reality of genocide with no end, we are collectively sinking into apathy. What are the logos behind this collective indifference, why did we lose interest? Why don’t we fight? Why aren’t we a mass movement?

I am not so sure whether I have the exact answers at my disposal, yet, I may be able to throw some light on the issue.

I am inclined to admit that the notion of Cultural Clash has indeed some deep meanings especially when it comes to the discourse of solidarity. Naturally, we tend to expect the subject of our solidarity to endorse our views while dumping his own. As much as Blair and Bush insist upon democratizing the Muslim world, we, the so-called left humanists have our own various agendas for the region and its people. In Europe some archaic Marxists are convinced that ‘working class politics’ is the only viable outlook of the conflict and its solution. Some other deluded socialists and egalitarians are talking about liberating the Muslims of their religious traits. The cosmopolitans within the solidarity movement would suggest to Palestinians that nationalism and national identity belongs to the past. Noticeably, many of us love Muslim and Arabs as long as they act as white, post-enlightenment Europeans. In other words, we love Muslims as long as they stop being Muslims.

For those who fail to realize, I may as well mentioned that ‘working class politics’ has nothing to do with Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan. For those who fail to see the obvious truth, I may as well mention that the industrial revolution has never made it to Gaza. Furthermore, the landslide victory of the Hamas proves beyond doubt that Palestinians are not exactly on the verge of dropping Islam. The million Shias that protested in Najaf last Monday were not exactly secular Arabs either. It is crucial to mention that the Palestinian struggle is a national struggle. The million Iraqi Shias who followed their Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr last Monday were overtly burning American flags while raising their own Iraqi ones as high as they could. In other words, we have good reason to believe that they may hold a consistent and genuine nationalist vision of their conflict and its resolution. Again, to expect Palestinians or Iraqis to become secular, cosmopolitan and working class ideologists is to expect Arabs and Muslims to act as European Marxists. It has noting to do with solidarity; it is actually nothing but projection. We project our solipsistic worldviews on others.


In Lacanian terminology, love means loving oneself through the other. At large, our notion of solidarity is not much different: we run a constant risk of performing solidarity with ourselves through the suffering of Palestinians and Iraqis. We are at risk of using Palestinians and Iraqis as an approval of our greatness. Alternatively I would suggest that to support the other means to accept otherness, to accept that which you may never grasp. To accept otherness is to let in the unknown and the unfamiliar. To support Palestine is to back the Hamas and to support Iraq is to back the Iraqi resistance and liberation struggle. Simply speaking, to show solidarity is to support and accept other people and their will.

But somehow, instead of doing just that, in most cases we happen to transform our subject of solidarity into a fetish. We self indulge with peace ideologies at the expense of other people’s pain. We instrumentally use the cry of the other as a reassurance of our own goodness. This may explain why so many of us have lost interest in Iraq and Palestine. If all we are interested in is just making love to ourselves, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria are more than replaceable. As it happens, once in a while we may show up in mass demonstrations and then just fade away into apathy for a decade or so.


Why do we fade away? Because we get away with it. Legally speaking, America and Britain are responsible for the colossal carnage in Iraq. Bearing in mind the fact that America and Britain are democracies and adding the embarrassing fact that the people of these two ‘great democracies’ have re-elected war criminals, leaves no other option but admitting a collective guilt. To a certain extent, every American and British citizen is liable for the crimes in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Yet this state of criminality means very little to most of us. Americans and Brits at least for the time being simply get away with it. America has lost 3,000 of its sons and daughters in the Iraqi war. As much as I feel sorry for those who lost their beloved, for a superpower the size of America, such a scale of loss is nothing but a negligible casualty rate. In comparison, on D-Day, America lost more or less the same number of combatants in a few hours. In modern warfare, superpowers are mainly engaged in killing innocent people from afar. America doesn’t risk its soldiers. It doesn’t provide occupied Iraq and Afghanistan with even elementary security. Seemingly, the American Generals realize that this would cost lives of their troops. How come the Americans fail to provide security? They simply get away with it. Why are we sinking into apathy? More or less because of the same reason, we get away with it.


As I am getting to the end of my talk, I may conclude that supporting Muslims and Jihad is probably a bridge too far for most Westerners. The typical Westerner doesn’t know how to bridge the gap between ‘materialism’ and ‘Jihad’ or between ‘self-loving’ and ‘martyrdom’. We happen to regard our lives as a precious gift with an immense value. We submitted to the post-enlightenment notion of individuality and individualism. Succumbing to the school of orthodox rationalism we believe in the ultimate power of reason. We adore science and admire technology. We are libidinally aroused by electronic gadgets.

Seemingly, spirit and beauty means very little to us unless attached to a commodity. In our Americanized reality, existence means market value. Yet, spirit of resistance and beauty are invaluable. I may suggest that we will never be able to fully understand what the Palestinian and Iraqi struggle means to its people unless we liberate ourselves from our narrow material vision of reality. We can never grasp people who sacrifice the ultimate unless we acknowledge that there is far more to life than just life. We can never understand Iraqi insurgency and the Palestinian liberation struggle unless we try to understand what soil may mean to people who refuse to get drunk on Coca-Cola.

The search for the meaning of solidarity is a personal issue. I believe that the meaning of solidarity is probably a very dynamic notion. I am starting to realize that within the current structure of affairs, the left who was pretty effective in mobilizing anti-imperial campaigns for years, may not provide anything for Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. The left, being a rational, post-enlightenment outlook, has its problem to solve with Islam and religious devotion. I hope that I am wrong here. I can see some isolated islands of left dialectic thinkers are ready to acknowledge that Muslim resistance may as well convey an alternative vision of reality and resistance.

I can speak for myself. For me, Jihad and jazz are very similar forms of commitment. For me, the generations of Black Americans who sacrificed everything for the sake of beauty and resistance were actually engaged in a holy war. For me it was Bird, Max Roach, Dizzy, Coltrane and others who went far beyond the American dream of materialism and market value. Jazz was their voice of freedom. Jazz was their call for a change. Jazz was an ideology, a spirit, and a way of living as well as dying. To be a jazz musician is to fight for beauty, to create and recreate, to construct and deconstruct, to question while knowing that answers may not be available for a while. To play jazz is to get lost deliberately. To play jazz is to leave the self behind.

_Gilad Atzmon is a London-based jazz musician, writer and activist. His books have been translated into 22 languages.

http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/72.php?id=288#

[tippy]

I think we are there because of greed more than hate and what would be the advantage to hating jews before hating muslims anyway? If you can't protect your turf, then you will not survive. That's the way it's always been.

[Hudson Boy]

I see absolutely no parallels between jihad and jazz. None whatsoever. One is the act of a madman, the other of an artist.

[guy]

Gilad Atzmon's Anti-Semitism is well-known, or should be.

Guy

[walto]

Ah, so jazz is anti-Zionist. Who knew?

[Scott Dolan]

And people wonder why Zorn is so pissed.

[Gary Sisco]

Music has no politics.

Only people have politics.

[Scott Dolan]

So how do you seperate it in a case like Rage Against The Machine, for example?

[walto]

Music has no politics.

Posting that shows that Lois ain't music then.

[groover]

Instrumental music has no politics, but lyrics can have them.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by groover

Instrumental music has no politics, but lyrics can have them.

What about an instrumental version of, say, "We Shall Overcome"?

[Noj]

or Jimi's Woodstock version of "The Star Spangled Banner?"

[Gentle Giant]

It would be slightly more compelling if he was really interested in talking about jazz and building an argument that it has conceptual ties to jihad. As it is, he's just spouting the same Muslim extremist shit one can find all over the Internet, mentioning jazz in his opening and closing statements.

I'd rather be drunk on Coca Cola (with a few shots of Captain Morgan of course) than drunk on martyrdom. Which begs the question: if being a martyr is so righteous, why doesn't he try it himself?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

What about an instrumental version of, say, "We Shall Overcome"?

I suppose it would depend on whether you are familiar with the original piece?

[groover]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

What about an instrumental version of, say, "We Shall Overcome"?

I would say that has a political connotation. Same with the Hendrix. You could appreciate them purely as melodies, but if you're familiar with the tunes, you'll probably react to the connotation and context in some way.

[Brian Olewnick]

You're both correct, of course. I could imagine a situation though--say you're in Maoist China and (I'm making this up, don't know if it was true) all music was group and/or choral oriented, massed folk songs. Say someone wrote a solo, atonal, very expressive piece. I'd say that, despite never having had lyrical content, in that situation it would be political music. Or in any extreme religio-political context, writing a non-programmatic, abstract piece of music.

[Vince Kargatis]

The thing about "connotation" is that there's a connoter and a connotee, and you need both for there to be political communication going on. Speaking as a potential musical connotee, I often have no trouble not connoteeing** - I rarely pay attention to lyrics unless I'm already familiar with the music, and I'm not one to presume political instrumental content unless it's pretty spelled out.

**I know that's not a word.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

if being a martyr is so righteous, why doesn't he try it himself?

Do Jews have a similar martyr tradition?

[groover]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Do Jews have a similar martyr tradition?

Jews have no shortage of martyrs, but not many voluntary ones, and they usually only get themselves killed in their act of martyrdom. The Japanese started one in WWII with their pilots, but it didn't last long enough to be considered a tradition.

This might make the difference clearer for you, Pete:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0405240846.asp

Leading Muslim clerics often refer to the love of death. Chief Palestinian Authority cleric Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri stated, "We tell them, in as much as you love life, the Muslim loves death and martyrdom. There is a great difference between he who loves the hereafter and he who loves this world. The Muslim loves death and [strives for] martyrdom." Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsin Al-Qassem in Al-Madina added: "The Jews preached permissiveness and corruption, as they hid behind false slogans like freedom and equality, humanism and brotherhood... They are cowards in battle... they flee from death and fear fighting... They love life."

Jews believe in humanism, brotherhood, equality, freedom, and that life is sacred, Muslims apparently don't. Just call me another humanistic life and freedom-loving coward.

[Al in NYC]

It's interesting to me that outside of the U.S. jazz is so often thought of as a political music or a music of resistance, civil disobedience, or revolution. Even in support of something so off the mark as Islamism and jihad - all of whose leaders certainly wouldn't, and don't, brook the music in any country ruled by them. Having been raised in the U.S. I guess I just don't (or can't) see it that way, and I'm always a little thrown off when I read this sort of stuff about jazz as a social and political force. It just always seemed like music that a lot of people my parent's age listened to, and a bunch of hip musically-inclined younger types still enjoyed. Beyond a few records and artists in the late '60s and early '70s that were self-consciously political, and the obvious fact that its roots are African-American, I never really saw these implications in jazz. And shoe-horning it into this role always reeks to my American mind of the sort of agenda polishing engaged in by those Ken Burns like folks who seem to have little interest in the music itself. Strange to hear it coming from and actual musician, and espcially strange in support of this particular religio-political force.

[groover]

Yes, Al, it is weird to see jazz put forth as a form of jihad when the real jihadists condemn all music. I can see jazz as being associated with jihad in the general sense of it's meaning, but the specific connotations of jihad today are antithetical to the existence of jazz.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I've commented repeatedly about politics and music on JC, many times, especially wondering about how someone who is conservative and right wing would use someone's picture as their avatar...say, Sun Ra, Frank Lowe, Archie Shepp, etc. without considering that their musics were political as hell, and much of it leftist, to boot...even anarchist in some cases.

We had a healthy discussion before: The Jazz and Resistance unite for Palestine Thread. The same arguments are presented here as were presented there...

[groover]

Isn't anyone here is going to defend the Taliban's right to ban the evil Western music known as jazz and discussion boards like this one?

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

[B]...especially wondering about how someone who is conservative and right wing would use someone's picture as their avatar...say, Sun Ra, Frank Lowe, Archie Shepp, etc. without considering that their musics were political as hell, and much of it leftist, to boot...even anarchist in some cases.

The answer seems simple to me - you don't have to care about those origins. Surely apathy is one of the easiest of human conditions to understand.

[groover]

Another Zionist dupe, Gilad?

Open letter to world Jewry

---

AKOON MOU TSINA, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 9, 2007

---

My name is Akoon Mou Tsina. I am a refugee from South Sudan and am now being held in Eilat, awaiting deportation. A militia attacked my village, killing my mother and my sister. I have not seen any members of my family since 1998. I was captured by the militia and taken into slavery for three years. A pastor from a Catholic Church helped free me and took me to Egypt in 2002 when I was 17 years old.

In Egypt, I was arrested four times without reason. The Sudanese Embassy kept security around the place where I was sleeping and arrested me once at night. If I had stayed in Egypt any longer I would have been deported back to Sudan because I talked to American journalists about my situation. I know if I am sent back there I will be in danger.

In June 2006, I crossed the border into Israel and am being held in a detention center in Eilat. The first thing I want to say is thank you to the Jewish people and the Israelis. The Israeli soldiers have been very nice to us. In my opinion there is no better military in the world. Egyptian border soldiers shoot at us when we try to get out of Sudan; the Israeli soldiers never shoot us. The Jews in Israel and America have been very supportive of us, but now we need their help more.

I am asking you for your help because you have been the victims of atrocity as well. You have also had to deal with borders being shut against you when it mattered most. In my experience, Egypt and Sudan are strongly linked. If we are sent back to Egypt, we will be put in prison or killed by the Sudanese security forces. Please ask Prime Minister Olmert not to send us away.
I understand that Israel is a small country and you cannot take in all those who suffer in Sudan. That is why I am asking for help from Jewish communities around the world. I hope the media, the Americans, and the Europeans will understand how much we need to leave Sudan and help to absorb us into their societies.

Thank you again for all of your help so far.
Akoon Mou Tsina's words were brought to print by Molly Nixon.

[groover]

Those sneaky Jewish humanists are at it again!

Think tank takes on 'gender apartheid' in Muslim world

---

Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST

Jul. 10, 2007

---

A conservative Jerusalem think tank is working to focus attention on the lack of women's rights and religious freedom in the Muslim world, in an attempt to combat Islamic extremism.

"The issue of women's rights in the Muslim world is of critical importance, because it serves to delegitimize and destabilize radical Islam in the Muslim world, where the issue of male dominance is a fundamental feature of society," said Dr. Martin Sherman, academic director of The Jerusalem Summit.

The Tel Aviv University political scientist said that a public struggle against "gender and creed apartheid" in the Muslim world would be effective in that it would be "using political correctness against those who hide behind it."

The small, secular think tank was established four years ago with funding from Russian oligarch Michael Cherney, who immigrated to Israel in 1994. The Jerusalem Summit is teaming up with evangelical Christians around the world on the issue.

"What we are trying to show is not just that Israel is not an apartheid state, but that Islamist society is in fact an apartheid empire," said the group's executive director, Dmitry Radyshevsky. He said it was high time Israel went on the diplomatic offensive.

A campaign by the West against Islamic fundamentalism on this issue coupled with a focus on the persecution of religious minorities in the Muslim world could cause these two central pillars of totalitarian Islamic ideology to crumble, he said.

The Moscow-born Radyshevsky said that just as the Soviet empire seemed invincible a quarter century ago, Islamic extremism could be weakened over time by such a political campaign.

The issue of women is "a major cleavage line" and "the soft underbelly" of Islamic society that could be part of a strategic initiative against Islamic extremism to include funding organizations advocating women's rights in Muslim countries, sanctioning countries that violate women's rights, and conditioning foreign aid and trade on the issue, Sherman said.

Representatives of the Jerusalem Summit have met with parliamentarians and religious leaders in the Philippines, South Korea, South Africa and Singapore, as well as members of the House of Lords, with additional events planned in Japan and Ukraine.

The think tank is reaching out to evangelical Christians around the world - especially via conferences in Europe, Africa and Asia - in coordination with the Knesset's increasingly influential Christian Allies Caucus, the parliamentary lobby that works with Christians supporters of Israel around the world.

"In the fight against radical Islam, evangelical Christians are the only group with the spiritual energy, numerical mass and moral resolve to confront Islamic extremism," said Sherman, who was born in South Africa and educated in a Catholic school in Johannesburg.

Radyshevsky, a graduate of Harvard University's Divinity School, said he envisioned The Jerusalem Summit as a counterweight to a slew of Islamic and Arab forums, as well as the far-left Israeli group Peace Now, and as a pro-Israel international forum of Biblical civilization.

The think tank, whose motto is: "A neo-Zionist response to post-Zionist appeasement," will start holding seminars for Israeli university students in Jerusalem this fall, in an effort to buttress Israel's PR efforts on campuses abroad. The nine-month seminars, which will be held in English, will meet once a week and include briefings by media and academic experts.

[crawjo]

Forget the anti-Zionist part, and forget the silly jazz = jihad part. It's really not relevant since this guy is obviously not about to start any political movements. I think nonetheless there are some good points in that essay, most importantly, that mass protests are fucking worthless. You get a permit from the government and then you protest. Big fucking deal. The government doesn't care, they have you in their box already. You are not a threat to them.

At the outlines of this essay, if you get past the silly equivalence between jazz and jihad and the same-old same-old rant against Zionism, you have an important message hidden in the subtext, which is that if you want to change the directions of governments, you need to be prepared to do more. You need to be ready to commit violence. Otherwise your actions essentially support the powers already in place. You are not really engaged in protest. You are engaged in a simulacrum of protest created by the thing you claim to protest against.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

...You are engaged in a simulacrum of protest created by the thing you claim to protest against.

In other words, bring a gun with your Baudrillard.

[crawjo]

Or a panga.

[burning dog]

If, as has been alleged, Atzmon has said things like "American Jews run the world" he has crossed a line, in my opinion, beyond being anti-zionist to become anti-jewish. Quite simply because it isn't true, the powers that be in the USA are only zionist because it suits them IMO and the most powerful ones sure ain't jews.

I like Atzmon's music and he seems a "good bloke" in the flesh, and I agree with his support for Palestinian self determination

I have read he calls himself an "ex-jew", no problem with that, but most bigots see a jew as a member of a race, not a religion or nationality. I could understand if he called himself an ex-Israeli or a jewish atheist or an anti-zionist jew.