August 07, 2012
David Mamet, Gilad Atzmon and Identity Politics
James Warner in Open Democracy:
Reading Gilad Atzmon's The Wandering Who? immediately after David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge, I was surprised to find the two books, written from vehemently opposed political viewpoints, nonetheless reminded me of each other. Does Mamet's need to see the Israelis only as scapegoats grow from the same root as Atzmon's need to see them only as perpetrators? An underlying emotional argument of Mamet's The Secret Knowledge could be glossed as “I used to be a poster child for liberalism, so all the more reason to believe me now I reject everything about liberalism.” For an underlying emotional argument of Atzmon's The Wandering Who? substitute “Zionism” for “liberalism.” But even if this were a compelling line of argument, each book contains plenty of evidence Mamet and Atzmon were never exactly poster children.
Mamet's plays and other writings celebrate individual courage, discipline, and commitment. While he has only recently started identifying as a conservative, his long-term distrust of academia and high estimation of street smarts, his generally low opinion of human nature and belief that playing the victim card is a more contemptible route to power than is straightforward self-interested chicanery – while arguably bipartisan attitudes -- in the contemporary U.S. tend to be more associated with the right. It's not surprising if a man whose plays observe the Aristotelian unities of Time, Place and Action leans conservative, while when it comes to Israel – more likely the driving factor behind Mamet's political conversion – he has for some time been on the right of Israel's foreign policy spectrum. According to The Secret Knowledge, he now desires a Republican victory in the U.S. in 2012 and the repeal of health care reform, Israel's infallibility apparently not extending to its system of socialized medicine. Mamet loves America and Israel for their entrepreneurialism, and tends toward the neocon line that Israel is the front line in the “War Against Terrorism,” and that anyone criticizing the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians must be an anti-Semite. Mamet reports he is now ashamed not to have fought in Vietnam, a lack for which his more recent hawkishness could be seen as a bid to compensate.
Atzmon on the other hand is in rebellion against his own experience of the 1980s Israel-Lebanon war, recalling in The Wandering Who? visiting a prison camp in Lebanon where Palestinians were incarcerated by Israelis, and deciding he was on the wrong side.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:39 AM | Permalink
Comments
Mamet is a good example of a phenomenon among some Americans: otherwise interesting, wise, fascinating, humanistic, intelligent people completely and totally lose their shit when it comes to Israel. The fact that he views everything as anti-semitic should give one pause. Typical of American extremism, he jumps on the bandwagon with the rest of the Right, retrofitting his pet paranoia with the party that validates his most absurd fantasies. What exactly does healthcare to do with Israel? exactly nothing. (As an aside it might be wise to remember that Mamet is rich, thus he has no need for the public sector like the rest of us do. He doesn't need transit, public schools, or law enforcement, or business regulations. People like him send their kids to private schools, have private security and lawyers on retainer, never fly coach and don't use public parks because they have several staffed homes with enormous yards for their children. He and Romney should get along great.) Meanwhile, the minorities and the sick get thrown under the bus as a result of the fear-based bigotry and resentment of a child who refuses to share his toys.
Posted by: Ray Butlers | Aug 7, 2012 12:40:04 PM
I've read many comments by David Mamet which show his complete disdain towards most Americans. He reminds me of the typical upper middle class high school boy with good grades who demeans everyone as he identifies himself with some imaged victimization.
The essence of his position is the assumption that the entire world owed it to the Jews of Europe to intervene to prevent their murder during World War II. You never hear him make the same argument about any duty owed to the 20 million Chinese people who were killed, or the 26 million Russians. Just the Jews.
He also assumes that the entire world is obligated to defend Israel in its ongoing battles with its neighbors.
Both assumptions reflect more the position of privilege of an upper class white male than they do reflect reality.
Nobody is obligated to intervene to protect other people, particularly when to do so would require putting their own life on the line. Nobody is obligated to fight another nation's battles.
So why does he assume otherwise? It is an unspoken understanding in the western world after World War II -- that somehow, even in the U.S., this was our fault.
But it wasn't our fault. Actually, we fought against the Nazis. If Mamet has a beef he wants to express, go to Germany. We didn't do it.
As for Israel, they have done nothing but steal land and wage wars for 60 years. Since the late 1990s, they have aligned with the neo-cons to stage coups in much of the middle east. What is the likely result? I'd say mass chaos and violence. But that is Israel's challenge. They need to solve it themselves. Or leave.
How many European Jews were wealthy, lived very comfortable lives before Hitler? Many of them. How many of them gave away all of their excess money -- beyond what they needed for a modest life -- to help the extremely poor people in the world, to save lives of others? None of them as far as I know. Since they were not willing to be inconvenienced a tiny bit by giving away their wealth, why would they expect the entire world to risk death to save them? It doesn't work like that.
As for Israel, same question. Who have they ever helped? We know it's not the Palestinians, who they are killing off, stealing their land, criminalizing their existence. So who have they helped? Nobody.
We see this in national gay rights groups, who became quite incensed that some black ministers opposed gay marriage. But I do not recall ever seeing national gay organizations and their members out in the streets marching, picketing, demanding equal rights, hiring, promotion and pay for black people. Do not recall gay groups out demanding equal schools for the children in the black neighborhood. If gay people want support from black Americans, they need to start by supporting the civil rights and demands of black Americans. It's not an assumed right -- it's a negotiated deal.
There should be an end to this assumption that one group owes it to another to risk their lives to save the others. If you want somebody to support you, you should start by supporting them. If you do not do that, then don't complain when nobody steps up for you.
You get what you give.
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 8, 2012 5:20:15 PM
Whoa, NABNYC! You need to do some more research before you start deriding gay people. You seem like a bigot to me.
BTW: Rights are not negotiated. There are inalienable.
Posted by: Ray Butlers | Aug 9, 2012 10:01:36 AM
Ray Butlers: obviously rights are not inalienable. We need to organize to fight for them. Or at least most of us do. Women don't have equal rights, and non-whites don't either. It's so silly to say that rights are "inalianable." They're not. Look around. But my point is that if people want support from other groups, they need to start by giving support. I am unaware of any situation in which national gay groups aligned with black organizations, got out in the streets to demand rights for black Americans, put their bodies on the line for somebody else. Yet when gays want to get married, they are incensed that black ministers oppose them. If gay people want the support of black ministers, or black people, or women, or Hispanics, then gay groups better get out and start forming negotiated alliances. I'll support you in this effort and you will support us in that effort. That's my point. You can't simply assume everyone is obligated to support you if you do nothing for others. It's negotiated, not magic.
And don't call me a bigot for making the observation that if one group wants support, they'd better get out and start supporting others. That is how it works in real life. Privileged groups seem to think they don't need to do anything for anybody else, but when they need something everyone should flock to their side. They're wrong.
Posted by: NABNYC | Aug 10, 2012 10:48:38 PM
NABNYC - What's your take on black-gay people and their rights? Or were you under the sectarian, patronisingly racist delusion that all gays are white caucasians?
Posted by: Si | Oct 31, 2012 9:57:58 AM
Post a comment