Al-Quds Divided: The Politics of Hatred

fairdinkum #107, & other interested posters,

Fairdinkum, since this article has been scrolled over, I was going to call it quits. However, I had promised to come back, and you asked, rather emotionally (you may call it passion!), many rhetorical questions. Put it mildly, you did not like my response. So, let me try one more time.

It seems, you presumed certain lack of understandings on my part, namely:

1. How Israel came into being.

2. What part the West, esp. US, played in the whole affair.

3. The politics of oil in ME.

4. Perhaps my inherent dislike for Arabs/Muslims.

5. My failure to respect significance of Jerusalem

to Islam.

Granted, I am no expert on ME history, politics or interplay of ethno-religious factors. However, whatever rudimentary knowledge I possess, the basic theme in my post still stand on a firm ground. I have nothing against Arabs, Muslims, religion or ethnicity. It is only based on one thread: What is beneficial TODAY for the Palastinians? To me, it is to settle for peace, stable home, own self-rule and a hope for a decent living. As Sigalph mentioned, they could have avoided decades of misery only if they were prudent and pragmetic enough to accept the 1948 UN resolution. In today`s Dawn opinion page, a writer is echoing the same thoughts, Says he, if the Arabs had accepted the existence of Israel, the state of Palestine would have come into existence decades ago. This is why my outbursts re. Arabs despots and religious zealots. When two countries are trying to settle, why the religion has to be dragged into? Why it suddenly becomes a do or die issue for a billion? As the US News reported, the problem is so intertwined with religion(s) that it has become difficult for any compromise; and, it states, ultimately may be impossible to solve. So,I do understand the religious complexities involved. It further adds to my argument that emotions, religion, etc. aside, now probably is the best time to strike a deal. Otherwise it may reach a point of no return. In that case, the future Palestinian generations will have no respect for their Muslim sympathisers who live in their own protected, secure territories while preaching them the virtues of Islamiyat. What the Palestinians, under Arafat, are asking for is exclusive sovereignty over J. You know, and I know, even if its fair, in reality it is not going to happen, esp. after desecration of the Jacobs tomb. So what is wrong to stop posturing, agitating and, worse still, lose innocent lives for a cause that is far-fetched. As you know, the Jews were barred from praying at the Wailing Wall from 1948 to 1965(8?) when Jordan controlled the city. Jews will not forget that and be willing to give up J.

As to the machinations of the West, US etc., they going to do what is best in their interests. Besides there is no recourse and, hence, no use on keep harping on that. In ME and SE Asia it is an old cliche, just muddy the rationality to see things clearly. As long as there is oil in ME, there is going to be `oil politics & diplomacy`. When they run out of it, the rest of the world would not even bother whether they exist or not!

In your response to Arun, you mention that much maligned `K` word. Instead of replying to the argument at hand you are trying to put the writer down. Besides, what happens in `Rome`(read K......), has no bearing in the ME.

Kant.....

Remember, Sikhashahi was synonymous with terror and tyranny. Avitable, the Italian governor of Peshawar under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, used to hand out jagirs whose rent was payable in Afghan (i.e., Pathan) heads. If I remember correctly, he had a sliding scale: something like 1 male head = 1+n female heads = 1 + xn children`s heads (sorry, don`t remember the exact ratio, although male children were worth more than female ones). I believe even Clive would have drawn the line at this! Lest we say that this was a White Male European thing, don`t forget that mothers in Hazara (NWFP) used to quieten their crying children with, ``Hush, or Hari Singh Nalwa will hear you!``

Of course, the Moghuls treated the Sikhs not much better. And the Mahrattas had good reason to hate (and be hated by, in turn) the Moghuls. And so on, ad infinitum.

Was the Raj perfect? Of course not.

Did it have no glaring faults? Of course it did.
Could it have done much better with relatively minimal effort/cost. Of course.

Was it better than what came before it? Of course.

Are we better off because of it? I would say yes.

Have we shown that we are morally superior to it? Of course not.

Look at how brutally we treat our own people: the E. Pakistan civil war, Baluch insurgency, Sindh MRD agitation, Punjab/Khalistan insurgency, Kashmir insurgency, NEFA/Assam insurgency, the Sri Lankan civil war and the list is seemingly endless. Oh yeah, all this is the Gora Saab`s fault and if he didn`t directly cause it, it is the inevitable result of the harsh, repressive, dehumanizing, fill in a few more adjectives here, nature of the colonial state.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arun:

Before we get too ecstatic about how great our pre-Raj institutions were, any anthropologist/sociologist will tell you that a key, if not the key, function, of most traditional institutions (e.g., village panchiyats) is to ensure that the dominant power and socio-economic position of the existing village elites is maintained. If some have managed to make the traditional system (or variants thereof, e.g., the AKRSP in Pakistan) work, its because you have an outside agency that acts to keep the exising village elites in line.

ylh #597 Now I see why you post at 90 mph - you cross-post!! (I just responded to this one on the other board). Would ataturk approve of that? (PS just kidding again, I need some comic relief from the serious stuff I am doing right now).

Re: Pat #543

That your impression- that most of the foot soldiers taking it in the face during the civil disobedience movement were of the `illiterate masses` variety- was instigated by Sir Attenborough is worrisome to me. I watched that movie too and fail to understand why you got that impression. That is unless of course you assumed that those guys lining up and taking a lathi on their heads must be doing so as a result of their illiteracy. Or perhaps you got misguided by their ragged homespuns and assumed that those who donned such an attire must be yokels. Either of the above two deductions (if you made them) do disservice to the `composition` of those masses.

My late Grandpa was one of the leading defense attorneys in the state. I still remember his disfigured (but very functional) arm that resulted from a compound fracture at a rally very similar to the one described in the movie. Even though he wore homespun until he died, I would have a really tough time classifying him as illiterate.

Thought this perspective would shed a bit of light.

Latif Chappu.

P.S. Commendations on your Bilalesque demeanor with YLH. It is a great tribute to your communication skills and subtle understanding of his apparently permanent sophomoric mental constitution that he hasn`t yet turned around and blasted you like he did poor Bilal. Having said that however..... just you wait. :)

re fairdinkum and bilal ahmad

Your genuine anguish at the plight of Palestinians would carry more weight if you keep the situation in perspective. Specially if you

1. Condemn Arab atrocities against Palestinians as much as Israeli ones

2. Refrain from the exploiting your greed to bring Kashmir into this

3. Understand the fact that the Jews are ordinary human beings not demons

That said, as one contributor points out, the Arabs are on a bit of a shaky ground asking for implementation of UN resolutions. Had they accepted the partition resolution of 1948, none of this would have happened.

Those of you who really oppose US policy in the Middle East and want to change it need a few additional pointers. The US will not abandon Israel as long as supporters of the Palestinian side

1. Condone, no matter in what bizarre terms, terrorism

2. Ignore that Israel remains a democracy while Arabs remain medieval dictatorships

3. Fail to unequivocally accept the right of Israel to exist within secure and safe frontiers.

UNtil then, please get a very large cup of cappucino along with Asif NAqshbandi as y`all wait for the Mahdi to conquer Israel and all the other good stuff.

Urstruly #114, ahmadb #107, Arun Gupta, and Kant

Dear Bilal and Urstruly,

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement.

The following is addressed to all participants in general:

The intent of my argument(s) was not to ultimately bring up the issue of Kashmir or to revisit the two-nation theory or to start India v Pakistan mudslinging match. Neither do I feel any discomfort/reluctance in bringing up these issues where appropriate. I do not concur with the approach/actions of Kashmiri militants, and I condemn the high-handed approach of Indian security forces in Kashmir and elsewhere. Although I have personally experienced love, respect, and a feeling of brotherhood amongst Muslims of the world, I still have some reservations about two-nation theory or the concept of Muslim people as one nation.

I find it extremely offensive, totally unacceptable even evil to legitimise/justify (directly or indirectly) killing/oppression (in any form), of innocent men, women and children and the weak anywhere in the world for any reason whatever. Be it Jews of Europe, Hindu yatris in Kashmir, minorities, women, and the weak in Pakistan, Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, Muslims in Bosnia/Kosova or Palestinians in “Israel.” They are human beings, and worthy of respect, and dignity.

I am a simple man, and I do not claim to have any in-depth understanding of the complexities and subtleties of world politics, history, international affairs, and the “games” that are being played by various economic/military powers around the globe. All I know is that it is incumbent upon me as a human being to stand up and be counted (in whatever capacity I can) and speak out against oppression. And if this road leads to Rome, or even hell, so be it. The passion, which, as urstruly point out, becomes apparent in my posts in such circumstances, is not something I am ashamed of.

I will address Mr. Arun Gupta’s post sometime later today.

RE: Fairdinkum # 108

Why is that, ultimately, all arguments lead to ``THAT`` conclusion-which you try your best to avoid?

All roads lead to Rome.

PS. Good arguments in #108; an argument without passion is a tree that fell in a jungle when no one was around.....

Perhaps fairdinkum and or others may want to comment on how the principles they would apply to Palestine or Kashmir should be used in the case of the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

-arun gupta

In reply to fairdinkum, #104, briefly -- I will try to amplify on points if requested.

1. I say that Jews were a people without a nation because they were liable to expulsion from European countries at any time during their history in Europe. Jews in many Middle Eastern countries, Ethopia, India etc. did not suffer from that liability. I did not mean these latter Jews.

2. Where Jews were not persecuted, they blended in. Sometimes so well that the people are barely distinguishable, and their claim to be lost Jews seems dubious.

The achievements of European Jews in the early 1900s was from a population that was blended in. Hitler disrupted the blending process.

2. No, I would not agree with Mr. Jinnah that Muslims of India are a separate nation, because there was no intention on treating them like the Jews of Europe. Muslims were and are to be equal citizens of India along with Hindus and everyone else.

3. No, I would not agree to the Kashmiris` claim of a separate homeland as long as Kashmiris are treated as equal citizens of India and simultaneously India remains a free country. I do not recognize the unqualified right of secession.

4. Yes, I know that Zionists planned migrations to Palestine. They even did it illegally, against British law. I don`t think Palestine was uninhabited; as I wrote, immigration created a large minority -- which implies there was another people there before.

5. On migration -- should I say that migration is in every case wrong ?

6. Likewise, when people are neighbours, is political separation between them desirable or wise ? Why couldn`t there have been a secular democratic state of Palestine instead of Israel and (future) Palestine ?

7. In any case, just as in South Asia, the decisions of 1947 cannot be undone, we have to live with the consequences, good and bad. I therefore did not see any need to discuss the issues of migration and self-determination/separation at length.

7. Israelis ignoring UN resolutions whose effect would not be to obliterate them is wrong. However, the very first one, namely peaceful partition of Palestine was not followed by one side; and the effect of that particular one tends to make subsequent resolutions meaningless.

8. In Kashmir, India did not lift the gun first. India has no reason to yield to a violent secessionist movement.

In my opinion, the only Kashmiri group that India should consent to talk with is that of Shabir Shah, who has been non-violent by principle. I will agree with you and anyone else that India has not treated him with justice.

-arun gupta

In response to mcgupta (Reply # 104)

Dear Arun:

Your statement: “I think far too many Palestinians, and Arabs in general, are not reconciled to the fact of Israel and still have the goal of somehow making it vanish.”

Comment: Is this just a guess? Or, is it based on any systematic study? Even if your statement has some merit (which I don’t think it does), should you distinguish between the rhetoric (in anger and/or frustration) and the actual capacity to make it a reality? Is there a comparison between the power of Israel (and its Western support base) and the combined power of the rest of the world, let alone the power of the Arabs?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

fairdinkum #107,

Yaar, no need to get naraaz! I have to rush now, but will get back and explain my stance on the subject. After that you may find mine not too far off yours.

Talk to ya latr........Kant

In response to Fairdinkum (Reply # 107)

Dear Fairdinkum:

A very penetrating set of question. My God, you write like me (perhaps better than me).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Arun Gupta #104

You say:

“Prior to Israel, the Jews were a people without a nation. ( Another people without a nation are the gypsies.)
The long history of persecution of Jews persuaded them that to defend themselves they would need a territory of their own, and so they claimed Palestine, even though they dispersed from there two thousand years ago”

Why do you say that Jews were a people without a nation? Weren’t they Germans? Austrians? British? Africans? Russians? Wasn’t/isn’t it their own choice to remain a distinct people based on their religious beliefs despite centuries of inhabitation in various countries? If you regard their claim of a nationhood based on their religious beliefs as valid, then would you agree with Mr. Jinnah that Indian Muslims were/are a separate entity from Hindus? And would you agree with the demand of Kashmiris for a separate homeland since they are Muslims? And they are not even talking about migrating from Europe to Kashmir to carve out a homeland for themselves? They have hundreds of years of continued presence in Kashmir…and they are majority, not a minority in that region.

While reading history of creation of Israel, didn’t you come across any historical account suggesting that Zionist movement carefully planned migration of Jews into Palestine? Did you know that Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians were not responsible for the persecution of Jews in Europe? And while philosophizing on the 2000 year old “historical” claim of Jews, and West’s decision to settle the Jewish problem in Europe, once and for all, by settling them in Palestine (in accordance with the whishes of Zionists), do you think that Palestine was uninhabited?
There are several UN resolutions, which Israelis have disregarded with sheer arrogance. Is this ok since they are militarily more powerful than Palestinians?

You say:

“If justice is to live in peace, security, with prosperity, with political freedom, with a voice in the conduct of one`s own affairs, with freedom of religion, culture, etc., then I believe that the Palestinians can achieve it only by non-violent means. But the original UN plan is out of reach.”

Why hasn’t India adopted a non-violent approach to resolving the issue of Kashmir? Is it because violent approach in this case is not likely to hurt “India” as much as it is hurting “Kashmiris”? If it were the other way around, only then a non-violent approach would have been appropriate?

Knowing your keen interest in history, I am indeed perplexed to see that while the struggle of Palestinians is still on, and history is in the making, you have already written the final chapter of your history book on this matter and concluded.

Kant Patel #106

Dear Kant,

I am indeed perplexed by your post. I usually find your posts to be well thought out and well reasoned.

You say:

“Palestenians have unfortunately ended up as pawns to play with in the hands of self-serving despots and the mis-guided religious zealots. If they had, instead, settled with the Israelis long time ago, the current, as well as the future, generations would have been a much better lot than most of their chest-beating bretheren. Besides, how could the Middle Eastern sheikhs, kings and dictators vouch for the rights for others when they are loath to grant the same to their own citizenery! Is it worth ruining for Jerusalem, when one could really settle for a joint or bilateral governance of the city?”


Have you ever reflected on why Palestinians have ended up as pawns to play within the hand of self-serving despots? Do you think if they had a country of their own, they would still be pawns? Do you think because Arab sheikhs have no regard for human rights, nobody should raise voice for the oppressed Palestinians? Do you really understand the significance of Jerusalem for Palestinians/Muslims? Do you think religious beliefs/spiritual attachment of Muslim people is not worth giving any weight to while deciding the fate of Jerusalem? What do you know about the US policies vis-à-vis oil rich Middle East? Do you think US/west has played any part in keeping the Royal dynasties of various Arab countries in power? Have you ever reflected on why wouldn’t US/West impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Egypt or even Turkey for gross human rights abuses?

You say:

“Does the sovereignty over it [Jerusalem] offers a pancea for all the Palestenian ills and misery? What Palestenians need right now are some leaders who can think rationally, rather than emotively, and guide people to arrive at compromises and a path to liberation from this wretched life of misery, wandering around, and begging help from the hypocratic and self-serving religious zealots.”


Perhaps sovereignty over Jerusalem won’t solve all the ills and miseries of the oppressed Palestinians. However, don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to lecture Palestinians on what is right/better for them? Isn’t it THEIR basic human right to decide their own fate? Do you feel any empathy towards homeless, oppressed people of Palestine? Do you think it is ok to kill Palestinian women, men and children because they are Arabs/Muslims? Do you think Arabs/Muslims are generally bad people and deserve to be killed?

If you were given a mandate to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what would you propose which would be acceptable to all parties?

Sigalph235 #100

Wasn`t it Black September? The Palestenians still hate Zia for the tortures. The whole Arab, as well as the Muslim, world were conspicuously mum. As a matter of fact, a lot of Pakistani army personnel got very well off from this `phoren` operations.

I tend to agree with you that the Palestenians have unfortunately ended up as pawns to play with in the hands of self-serving despots and the mis-guided religious zealots. If they had, instead, settled with the Israelis long time ago, the current, as well as the future, generations would have been a much better lot than most of their chest-beating bretheren. Besides, how could the Middle Eastern sheikhs, kings and dictators vouch for the rights for others when they are loath to grant the same to their own citizenery! Is it worth ruining for Jerusalem, when one could really settle for a joint or bilateral governance of the city? Does the sovereignity over it offers a pancea for all the Palestenian ills and misery? What Palestenians need right now are some leaders who can think rationally, rather than emotively, and guide people to arrive at compromises and a path to liberation from this wretched life of misery, wandering around,and begging help from the hypocratic and self-serving religious zealots. No Asif, you can wallow in your prophecies, this people have suffered enough and have no patience for the `great arrival`. Reliving the past will not buy the future!

Kant......

In reply to krashid : ``Jews control the economy``, etc. is nonsense; and does comprise anti-semitism.

Regarding their religious attitudes -- I believe the orthodox Jews can compete with orthodox Muslims in their intolerant fundamentalism. But the modernists are a very different people.

-arun gupta