Sartre and European and Zionist intellectuals

 Sartre and European and Zionist intellectuals

    Sartre and European and Zionist intellectuals

    What is unique about the nature of ?

     its racism, and its colonial policies that still pass in front of the understandings of left-wing European intellectuals? We have Palestinians who do not receive sympathy from important left-wing intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault, or conditional sympathy from other intellectuals such as Jacques Derrida, Pierre Purdue, Etienne Paliber and Slavoy Cicek.

    Edward Said once wrote about his meetings with Sartre and Foucault (who were hostile to the Palestinians) and Gil Duloz (who was anti-Zionist) and their writings in this regard. Where these cultural and political obligations were opened by pro-Zionist Sartre and noticed by Edward Said, they are considered a symbol of many left-wing European intellectuals and liberals today.

    While most of these intellectuals stood against racism and white supremacy, opposed to Nazism and the apartheid regime in South Africa, they seemed to oppose colonialism both ancient and modern. Also, they share the Sarti heritage that refuses to see the change in the status and condition of European Jews, this legacy that they still see as victims of the Holocaust only. While this same legacy refuses to consider the situation of European Jews as colonists who used colonial racial violence in the past century against the Palestinian people, a situation that the followers of the Sartrian heritage strongly reject. Although some of these intellectuals conclusively recognized the violence of the Jewish state and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip,No, they still hold in their minds the image of the Jewish state as a state established by Holocaust survivors, not by armed colonial settlers.

    In an interview with the Institute for Palestine Studies in 2000, the late Pierre Bourdieu said: “I have always hesitated to define my position on the issue of the public ... because I did not feel that I am sufficiently able to come up with an explanation of what is undoubtedly the most tragic and difficult question of our time: how We choose between the victims of racist violence purely and the victims of these victims?

    If Purdue meant this with the Holocaust, he would have fallen victim to Zionist propaganda. It does not matter how many times Zionism tried to revive this argument as a justification for its racist violence against the Palestinians, as the Holocaust does not justify the nature of Israeli racism. And if Bordeaux accepts this argument, the struggle he feels about choosing between Israel and its victims is a pre-existing problem.

    Let's take Jack Derrida as another example, Derrida who said when he was lecturing in occupied Jerusalem in 1986 where he stated his position saying: “I declare my solidarity with those who demand an end to violence on this piece of land, and those who deny terrorist crimes, army crimes and police repression, and who They demand the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from the occupied territories and the recognition of the Palestinian right to choose their representatives in negotiations,

    Regardless of Derrida's opposition to white supremacy in South Africa in the mid-1980s, he believed that Israel was a Jewish racist state that everyone should recognize. Derrida's denial and resistance to seeing Israeli colonialism and racism operate with the same force, albeit by different means, within the Jewish state, as it demonstrates an emotional attachment to Israel in the areas occupied by Israel. This association is Derrida's motive for saying: “Being here is a clear expression not only of my concern about justice and the friendships that bind me to the Palestinians and the Israeli

    Post a Comment