Editorial censorship in 21st century Western world?

THE CASE

«In 2002 and 2003, Editions de Minuit issued two volumes edited by David Lapoujade collecting together Deleuze’s shorter pieces and interviews from 1953-1974 and 1975-1995 [“Deux Régimes de Fous: Textes et Entretiens 1975-1995”].

Both volumes have now been translated into English and published by Semiotext(e). (…)

The French edition is comprised of 62 texts, numbered in chronological order. This volume has only 61 texts; one has been lost along the way. The missing text is entitled ‘Grandeur de Yasser Arafat’, first published in the Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes in 1984. This is omitted without comment and the subsequent texts are renumbered leaving no indication that something is missing. At first glance this looks deeply suspicious. While there are a number of other texts in the volume that touch on potentially sensitive political issues, including on the plight of the Palestinians (e.g. DRF 179-84, 311-12; TRM 194-200, 333-4), the title alone of this missing text is enough to make one consider the possibility of deliberate political censorship. If the omission of this text was a deliberate editorial decision by either the translators or the publishers then this is deeply disturbing. Thankfully the text has been translated already by Timothy Murphy and published in the journal Discourse 20/3 (1998), 30-33.

I have contacted Semiotext(e) to find out more. Their reply explained the absence of this text as a production mistake. While I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, the fact that the only text lost in production was this one creates the impression that more sinister forces might have been at work. If it was indeed merely the consequence of a production mistake then this is an unfortunate impression. But if so, such a production mistake, combined with the poor quality of the translation, makes this a doubly flawed volume. Rather than a complete translation, all we get is an incomplete paraphrase». (Source)

 

THE MISSING TEXT

«The Grandeur of Yasser Arafat»

«The Palestinian cause is first and foremost the set of injustices that these people have suffered and continue to suffer. These injustices are acts of violence, but also illogicalities, false reasonings, false guarantees that claim to compensate or vindicate them. Arafat needed only one word to describe the broken promises, the violated agreements, at the moment of the Sabra and Shatila massacres: shame, shame (italics in the original).<1>

It’s said that this is not a genocide. And yet it’s a story that consists of many Oradours, from the very beginning.<2> Zionist terrorism was practiced not solely against the English, but on the Arab village which had to disappear; Irgoun was very active in this respect (Deir Yasin).<3> From beginning to end, it involved acting as if the Palestinian people not only must not exist, but had never existed.

The conquerors were those who had themselves suffered the greatest genocide in history. Of this genocide the Zionists have made an absolute evil (italics in original). But transforming the greatest genocide in history into an absolute evil is a religious and mystical vision, not a historical vision. It doesn’t stop the evil; on the contrary, it spreads the evil, makes it fall once again on other innocents, demands reparation that makes these others suffer part of what the Jews suffered (expulsion, restriction to ghettos, disappearance as a people). With “colder” means than genocide, one ends up with the same result.

The United States and Europe owed reparation to the Jews. And they made a people, about whom the least that could be said is that they had no hand in and were singularly innocent of any holocaust and hadn’t even heard of it, pay this reparation. It’s there that the grotesque begins, as well as the violence. Zionism, then the state of Israel will demand that the Palestinians recognize its right (droit) (italics and french in the trans.)

But the state of Israel will never stop denying the very fact of a Palestinian people. They will never speak of Palestinians but of the Arabs of Palestine, as if they found themselves there by chance or in error. And later, they will act as if the expelled Palestinians came from outside, they will speak of the first war of resistance that the Palestinians led all alone. Since they haven’t recognized Israel’s right, they will be made into descendants of Hitler. But Israel reserves the right to deny their existence in fact. Here begins a fiction that had to stretch further and further, and to weigh on all those who defended the Palestinian cause. This fiction, this wager of Israel’s, was to make all those who would contest the de facto conditions and actions of the Zionist state appear as anti-Semites. This operation finds its source in Israel’s cold politics with respect to the Palestinians.

From the start, Israel has never concealed its goal: to empty the Palestinian territory. And better, to act as if the Palestinian territory were empty, always destined for the Zionists. It was clearly a matter of colonization, but not in the nineteenth-century European sense: the local inhabitants would not be exploited, they would be made to leave. Those who remained would be made, not into a dependent territorial workforce, but rather into a mobile and detached workforce, as if they were immigrants placed into a ghetto. From the start, lands bought on the condition that they be empty of occupants, or can be emptied. It’s a genocide, but one in which physical extermination remains subordinated to geographical evacuation: being only Arabs in general, the surviving Palestinians must go merge with other Arabs. Physical extermination , though it may or may not be entrusted to mercenaries, is most certainly present. But this isn’t a genocide, they say, since it’s not the “final goal”; in reality, it’s just one means among others.

The complicity of the United States with Israel does not arise solely from the Zionist lobby. Elias Sanbar (Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes) has shown clearly how the United States rediscovered in Israel an aspect of its own history: the extermination of the Indians which, there as well, was only in part physical. It was a matter of emptying, as if there had never been an Indian except in the ghettos which were made for them as immigrants from inside. In many respects, the Palestinians are the new Indians, the Indians of Israel. Marxist analysis reveals the two complementary movements of capitalism constantly to impose limits, which it develops and exploits its own system; and always pushes these limits farther back, to exceed them in order to begin its own foundation once again on a larger and more intense scale. Pushing back limits was the act of American capitalism, the American dream, taken up by Israel and the dream of Greater Israel on Arab territory, on the backs of the Arabs.

How the Palestinian people learned to resist and are resisting; how a people of ancient lineage became an armed nation; how they gave themselves a body which simply represent them but embodied them, outside their territory and without a state, all these events demanded a greater historical character, one who, we might say from a Western point of view, could have stepped out of Shakespeare, and that was Arafat. It wasn’t the first time in history that something like this had happened (the French can think of Free France, except for the fact that it had a smaller popular base at the beginning). And all the occasions on which a solution or element of solution was possible, occasions that the Israelis have deliberately, knowingly destroyed, are not happening for the first time in history either. The Israelis held onto their religious position of denying not only the Palestinian right but also the Palestinian fact. They cleansed themselves of their own terrorism by treating the Palestinians as terrorists from outside.

And precisely because the Palestinians were not that, but rather were a specific people as different from other Arabs as Europeans can be among themselves, they could expect only ambiguous aid from the Arab states themselves, aid which sometime turned back into hostility and extermination when the Palestinian model became dangerous for them. The Palestinians have run through all the infernal cycles of history: the failure of solutions each they were possible, the worst reversals of alliance of which they bore they brunt, the most solemn promises not kept. And on all this their resistance had to nourish itself.

It may well be that one of the goals of the Sabra and Shatila massacres was to discredit Arafat. He only consented to the departure of the combatants, the force of which remained intact, on condition that the security of their families be absolutely guaranteed by the United States and even by Israel. After the massacres he had no other word than “shame.” If the ensuing crisis for the PLO resulted, in more or less the long term, either in an integration into an Arab state or a dissolution into Muslim fundamentalism, then it could be said that the Palestinian people had effectively disappeared. But this would be in such conditions that the world, the United States and even Israel would not finish regretting the lost occasions, including those that still remain today. To Israel’s most arrogant formula, “We are not a people like others,” the Palestinians have not stopped responding with the cry that was invoked in the first issue of the Revue d’Etudes Palestiniennes: “we are people like others, we only want to be that….”

By leading the terrorist war in Lebanon, Israel believed it could be suppress the PLO and deprive it of the support of the Palestinian people, already deprived of their land. And perhaps its succeeding, since in surrounded Tripoli there is nothing more than the physical presence of Arafat among his own, all in a sort of solitary grandeur.

But the Palestinian people will not lose their identity without creating in its place a double terrorism, of the state and of religion, which will profit from its disappearance and render impossible any peaceful settlement with Israel. From the war in Lebanon, Israel will not escape merely morally divided and economically disorganized, it will find itself faced with the mirror of its own intolerance. A political solution, a peaceful settlement is possible with an independent PLO which will not have disappear into an already existing state and will not be lost among the diverse Islamic movements. The disappearance of the PLO would only be a victory for the blind forces of war, indifferent to the survival of the Palestinian people.

Notes:

1. Sabra and Shatila massacres: 1982 massacres of Palestinians at refugee camps in Lebanon, carried by Lebanese Phalangist aided by the Israeli army. The signing of Oslo accords was the same date September 13 as the start of the Sabra massacres. Edward Said and others have noted this parallel.

2 Oradour: french village destroyed by Nazi occupation troops in retaliation for Resistance activity shortly after the start of the D-Day invasion.

3. Irgoun: right wing Zionist organization that used terrorist tactics against British force and others in postwar Palestine.

 

Gilles Deleuze, originally published in Revue d’ Etudes Palestiniennes, nº 18, 1984, pp. 41-43.

Translated by Timothy Murphy, in Discourse Fall, 1998.

___________________________________________

Deleuze wrote about the Palestinians about three other times after this article was published, as well he wrote letters of protest about the massacre of the Iraqui people in the so-called Gulf war.

Advertisements

A numerologia dos modos de pensar

I. Os monocentrados
Pensam que há Um Só Deus, que não há amor como o primeiro, que só eles é que sabem, que o seu país pertence a um só povo e raça, sentem-se sós quando estão a sós, só têm um prato favorito (tipo bife com batatas fritas), só compram uma marca (sempre a mesma) de pasta dentífrica, só apreciam um género literário ou um destino para férias, têm um só clube, não são vira-casacas, etc. Todo o tipo de fascistas que possam imaginar.

II. Os dialécticos
Alinham por antíteses do tipo analítico “versus” continental, anglófilo “versus” francófono, lógica clássica “versus” poesia romântica, realismo “versus” idealismo, ou é preto ou é branco, ou sim ou não, ou carne ou peixe. São fascistas rivalizando (isto é, roubando ideias aos da outra margem) para ver quem é que consegue ser mais fascista, se os da Esquerda ou os da Direita.

III. As tríades
Acreditam que Deus é Trino – Pai, Filho e Espírito Santo -, que é o mesmo que dar a Deus um Tridente. Rezam o terço ou tergiversam, mas só dizem tretas e trivialidades. Traidores por natureza, andam sempre atrás do que perderam, julgando vir a obtê-lo quanto mais se submeterem ao “tripalium”, isto é, ao trabalho, pelo qual, fazem do coração tripas. Trabalham para todo o tipo de fascistas que possam imaginar, na ilusão de estarem a contribuir para se libertarem do fascismo.

IV. Os quadrados
São quadradões e passam horas a olhar para quadros, mas, no fundo, não percebem nada do assunto. Decoraram em crianças os quatro silogismos de Aristóteles e os quatro elementos canónicos da frenologia, mas quando chega a altura de aplicá-los baralham-se todos, tendo mais habilidade com o baralho de quatro naipes. São incertos como o catavento na montanha. Umas vezes são fascistas, outras não, mas não fazem a mínima ideia de quando o são.

V. As quintessências
Procuram um Quinto Império na Terra, descobriram no mundo um quinto elemento, preferem a vida ao ar livre ou numa quinta, conhecem os cinco continentes, mas ninguém dá nada por eles. Entreteceram com o fascismo uma relação de vida ou de morte.

VI, VII, VIII, XI e X.
É favor ler em ordem inversa do V até ao I. Não desprezar a mudança de direcção.

Aos tecnocratas

É vulgar julgar anti-progresso ou conservador quem critica ou bloqueia os avanços tecnológicos da ciência tecnocrática moderna. Juízo apressado e tacanho. Será mais conservador aquele que defende a proliferação das técnicas e tecnologias mecânicas («servidores de silício») que replicam as funções orgânicas («servidores de carbono») ou aquele que as minimiza e substitui por técnicas de si para se tornar, não um mecanismo racional, mas um «autómato espiritual» (Spinoza)?

Há muita gente que, antes de abrir a boca, deveria rever o conceito heideggeriano de «técnica» e as distinções de Bergson entre «mecanismo» e vida.

Não são mais máquinas, nem mais “choques tecnológicos” que farão evoluir o pensamento ou o país, pela simples razão de que, quer mecanismos, quer organismos (distinção que nem sequer é muito relevante, dado que «os meios são extensão do homem»), são funções, pensam e obedecem mecanicamente como funcionários de Estado (onde se incluem políticos, médicos, juízes, professores e polícias), e é raro – mas não impossível – que acedam àquilo que os obriga a pensar: o tropeçar na vida, e ter, de repente, que inventar uma técnica para subsistir.

A limpar, sujais

«Os produtos de limpeza são fabricados com substâncias derivadas da indústria petroquímica, reconhecidamente uma das maiores fontes de poluição das águas e da atmosfera. Os líquidos coloridos e perfumados escondem vários componentes nocivos. (…)

A cada dia, chegam ao mercado produtos de limpeza mais fortes e teoricamente mais eficientes, mas que são fontes de desequilíbrio, e de doença, para o organismo humano e para o planeta.

A Agência de Protecção ao Meio-Ambiente dos Estados Unidos afirma, em relatório, que a poluição do ar interior das casas é um dos problemas de saúde ambiental mais importantes do país. A maioria das casas possui uma concentração por área de substâncias químicas nocivas de 2 a 70 vezes mais alta do que os ambientes externos, porque os produtos de limpeza e de higiene libertam vapores tóxicos quando são usados. Foram detectadas 150 substâncias químicas nas casas, com as quais as pessoas entram em contacto sem os cuidados e a protecção dos laboratórios (luvas, máscaras, óculos, etc.), já que são as mesmas substâncias químicas manuseadas em laboratórios.

E este quadro é o mesmo em Portugal. (…)»

Fonte