"You
are silent,
I was; you
speak, I am."
I (JB) had always thought of this in terms of the possibility of a living relationship with the dead.
(In anthropological terms, there is nothing magical or superstitious about such a possibility; it would be, rather, almost a truism in nearly all human life worlds save the post-Enlightenment. If language, symbolmaking, culture, created as they arose the problem of acute consciousness of individual mortality, their evolution was in turn also driven as the solution to that problem.)
Taken as a statement about the politics of memory, this would be consonant with Benjamin's injunction to us to rescue our dead from that enemy "who has not ceased to be victorious." I had always thought, that is, of Jabès' "I" here in the guise of one dead, of Jabès in fact as a speaker for the dead.
Speaking of the dead, then, in a way that rescues them "from a conformity that is about to overpower them" would be a way of pre-serving life, would address and limit in some way the death of the dead. In this attempt to translate between Jabès' injunction and Benjamin's, pastness (having been, "I was "

would be analogous to death, as presence (being, "I am"

would be analogous to life!