Bigotry, Racism and American Media

SADHNA`S POST AND RESPONSES

Dear Sadha:

All Chowkwallas (including you and me) should provide some sort of commentary with each clipping.

I have read the piece carefully. It appeals, only when you fail to take into account the power game. We need to enter the shoes of other people to empathize with them.

I agree with Fairdinkum that there cannot be lasting peace (compromise) unless it is deemed just by the contending parties.

I think, the Palestinians should not rush for a quick fix. I have similar views about Jammu and Kashmir too. Lest we forget, the Partition of India still haunts an overwhelming majority of the people in South Asia. It was, I think, a quick fix.

I am, however, in favor of keeping the lines of communication open. As you know well, I also favor peaceful resistance (as peaceful as virtually possible).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

re # 226

sadna-ji

Your very apt posting remind me of an old saying by (since quoted by many) Arab-American Dr Philip Habib who was Reagan`s special envoy to the Mideast:

``The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.``

sadna,

Thanks for the article. yar, what is needed is a realization that peace without ``justice`` will not last... A compromise on the definition of justice in the context of Palistenian-Israeli conflict cannot be reached as long as US is the dominant power broker in Mid-East politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
Senseless in Israel
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Some 20 years ago a new U.S. Middle East special envoy was making his first tour of the West Bank. At the end of the day, according to legend, he gathered with a few reporters at the King David Hotel bar for a drink. As the mood loosened, the reporters pressed him for his impression of the West Bank, which Israelis and Palestinians were contesting. ``Aw, I couldn`t tell ya,`` the U.S. envoy said in his Texas drawl. This went on for a while until the envoy finally relented. ``Off the record?`` he asked the reporters. Off the record, they nodded. ``Well,`` said the U.S. envoy of the West Bank, ``I don`t know why one of them would want it and why the other wouldn`t just give it to them.``

That story came to mind when thinking about the fight over who will be our next president. The Middle East is now such a mess, I don`t know why one guy would want responsibility for it and why the other wouldn`t just give it to him. Our next president will likely take office with an Israeli-Palestinian war waiting on his doorstep.

But this is a war with a difference — it has no name — because it makes no sense. And it makes no sense because it`s a war that both sides go into knowing they can`t win. The Israelis can`t win this war because the normal means of victory — occupying the other guy`s territory — is something they don`t want. Israel has already left parts of the West Bank and Gaza because it didn`t want the pain and bloodshed involved in ruling over the Palestinians there.

The Palestinians go into this war knowing that they have no power or international support for getting rid of Israel, and that they could get much of what they want at the table. Sure, they can make life miserable for the Israelis, but only by totally impoverishing Palestinians, which they are doing.

The Palestinian strategy is, frankly, insane — and they need to be told that by their friends. The Palestinians had America, the world`s only superpower, sponsoring negotiations for a Palestinian state, they had an Israeli prime minister ready to offer — as an opening bid — 92 percent of what they wanted on the ground, they had an Israeli public where polls showed 60 percent favoring a Palestinian state and 40 percent ready to give Palestinians half of Jerusalem, without even knowing what Israel would get in return, but, despite all that, the Palestinians preferred to throw stones. The Palestinians are behaving like a high school student who on graduation day, when offered his diploma, says, ``No thanks, I`d rather do another year of high school.``

Ahh, you say, but that`s because they really want to destroy Israel. Fine. But then their war strategy makes no sense either. They have not been able to mobilize the Arab world into a war. And the world generally has lost interest in the CNN view of the conflict, especially now that the Palestinians are also using guns. The Palestinians are like actors on a stage who have not noticed that the audience has left the theater. Elvis has left the building. And if the Palestinians thought that Israelis would get tired of shooting them, as happened with the Lebanese, they were dead wrong. Jerusalem is not South Lebanon.

But the Israeli strategy is also wacky. Israel continues to hold on to far-flung settlements plunked in the middle of Gaza, where they consume the best land and water, surrounded by one million destitute Palestinians crowded into tiny spaces. Israel tells itself that it`s just keeping these as bargaining chips, but in fact these idiotic settlements remain because Israel has never been ready to go through the internal fight to stop building them. Now it pays the price.

All this craziness aside, I`m convinced the parties will eventually find their way back to the table, because a war this painful and this senseless is not sustainable.

``But when they do we`ll need a whole new peace process — one that is anchored in each society, and one that is not full of the sort of ambivalence that eroded the old peace process,`` says Stephen P. Cohen, analyst at the Israel Policy Forum. ``Both sides were ambivalent about the old peace process. The Israelis wanted peace, while maintaining underlying control of the Palestinians. The Palestinians wanted peace, without giving up their hatred of Israel. With such ambivalence we can only get cease- fires. You`ll only get more when each side, on its own, develops the will, interest and perspective to live together.`` 

Fairdinkum #

``Instinctive feeling of siding with disadvantaged``.

You hit the nail on the head.

So hitting the nail on bottom will be.

``Instinctive feeling of siding with oppressors.``

Khuda Syed Zadeh ko Khush Rakhe.

fairdinkum #223
Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, I wasnot questioning you personally or your beliefs.

Sadhana

sadna #222

“ Just a question which has been puzzling me, though…………..”

Sadhana,

Individuals possess plurality of potential “we’s”. When individuals come together as distinct groups their collective identity is selected from a multitude of possible markers. These selected markers provide a greater scope for perusal of their common goals. Individuals may belong to several groups at any point in time, but normally only one ``community`` defines their political identity. Hence, the question you should be asking is why a certain identity assumes primacy at a particular point in time or in a given situation.

“In the political arena, this translates into expanding political space and gaining political power through the use of ``otherization`` as a conscious policy.”

I think we all ruthlessly pursue our individual and collective interests (real or imagined).
However in my view our interests, as human beings, are inextricably interwoven. If an individual or a group benefits at the expense of another individual/group, then is it really progress? It may be perceived as progress in whatever name (national interest seems to be the most fashionable term these days), but is it really progress? Call me an idealist, a starry-eyed idiot who lives in a fools paradise, but I just can’t work it out. How can we find happiness if we intend to get it by making somebody else unhappy?
This is how, in essence, I view the unhappiness of people of Israel. They have achieved more than what they set out to achieve after the ww2 in terms of material gains, land and resources, and an independent Jewish state by forcibly displacing millions of Palestinians. But are they really happy?

I personally don’t like to tie my interests to collective interests of any particular group…. I really don’t believe in the concepts of ‘motherland’ or ‘national interest’ as the original/dominant markers of my identity … I guess I am not a “patriotic” person…. the reason for coming out strongly to defend “Muslims/Palestinians” in certain situations is not that I consider them to be my dominant markers of identify, but my instinctive feelings of siding with the disadvantaged…. I don’t think I owe anybody an apology for that.

Take care!

fairdinkum #220
I can understand that `ummah` and `jihadi` could be distasteful, but I donot recall using the word `jihadi` on this board. And posts #140 #154 #160 were doubtless posted by aliens.

And Pakistani newspapers, the OIC and vocal political party leaders need to be taken to task, too. Ref my post #219 to ahmadb. Perhaps they donot realise they are speaking to a constituency in India, too, which cannot be prevented from making up its mind one way or the other on Indo-Pak relations.

Just a question which has been puzzling me, though. Apparently(from observing outrage on chowk and elsewhere), its right and proper(and preordained) for Muslims to think collectively and pursue solely `Muslim` causes. But its not kosher for Jews to collectively pursue solely Jewish causes, nor for Indians to pursue solely Indian causes, nor the West to pursue solely `Western` causes. Each one of these groups is repeatedly tasked with bearing the responsibility for the fate of their adversaries. With the exception of Muslim groups in many places esp in the Middle East who have the unique right to act/think with regard to nothing but their own interests?

Sadhana
PS: raakhee? Well, the festival is done for this year. Maybe next year :-).

Re sadna

“And sorry to disappoint, but there are plenty more like me where I come from, the Government of India would go down-under trying to get all those millions on the payroll.”

When are they coming over here to recruit? :)

Re sadna

accha theek hai lets continue the lapra.

Regardless of who introduced terms like ‘ummah’ or ‘jihadis’ in India and regardless of whether or not ummah is a farce, what is the point of keep hammering these terms on the heads of chowk community?
Use them where appropriate, but excessive and inappropriate use of these terms is distasteful.

Aur aap nay bhai keh diya hai tu ab raakhi bhi baandhni paray gi kya?

fairdinkum #217
kya bhai, it would have been nice to quarrel some more? Well OK, another time :-).

Sadhana

ahmadb #218
Thanks for your post.

Re `Ummah`, one cannot help taking statements by Islamic leaders and opinion makers at their face value. Just one example:
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2000-daily/20-11-2000/oped/o3.htm

``...We should not overlook the substantial Indian presence in the Gulf states. The Indian expatriates have been clever enough to make inroads into key sectors, in particular the media, and carry weight with policy makers. In order to break the Indian clout in the Gulf and other Islamic countries we must begin by hitting at the roots of their facility to gain access to the power structure in these countries. I have myself, for instance, often advised my compatriots in the Gulf not to feel shy of telling the local people that the Indian expatriates were a security risk, since they were instruments of New Delhi`s `hegemonic design`.

In the face of a known `Indo-Israeli nexus`, encompassing cooperation in the nuclear field, it should be easy for our people to launch the much needed campaign for the containment of Indian influence being exercised through its nationals residing in the region. I see no harm if our people were to say why should the Indians be allowed to come and work in these countries when Pakistanis, Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans were also available to do the job. Unfortunately we have yet to learn to fight the enemy on all fronts...``

Unfortunately for the intellectual integrity of the `Ummah``s stands, which are mentioned repeatedly in this article, a large proportion of the `targetted` Indians in the Gulf are Muslims themselves. Apart from which the number of Muslims in India outnumbers the population of many OIC states combined. So in a way you are right, the OIC/`self-declared` Ummah represents a spurious/incoherent/opportunistic solidarity. But IMO, the term `Ummah` is not a creation of Indians/`enemies of Islam`, its a term of self-description among many Muslims themselves.

Just to clarify, IMO the sooner any grouping whether based on religion/ethnicity/common interests begins to represent honestly the common people in the Arab/Muslim world, the better it is for all.

btw, did you happen to notice that a photograph of Edward Said throwing a stone at Israelis across the Lebanon border after the recent Israeli withdrawal created a small furore at his US university recently?( I am not making any point here, just sharing interesting trivia).

Sadhana

In response to sadna (Reply # 216)
Dear Sadhna:

The word ``Ummah`` has become fairly fashionable among the Muslims in more recently times. However, Ummah is was never real (and will probably be never be real), it bears only imagined-abstract reality. Look at the so-called Muslim/Islamic World, both historically and geographically. Do you see much solidarity?

In my Reply # 4, I introduced Edward Said`s ``Covering Islam.`` Please read it if you really are interested in a dialogue on Islam/Muslims. Edward Said is respected around the world for his scholarship, despite the fact that he is a Palestinian Christian activist.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

re sadna,

Your point re my rheotric is well taken..

Rest.... well, may be another time... Perhaps i get a bit too excited when it comes to Palestinian issue..

talk to you later!

``amongst these people, majority, unfortunately is Indian. However, I don’t think that wholesale condemnation of entire Muslim population of the world [in whatever name(s) – Jihadis, ummah, fundamentalists etc. etc.] is in India’s national interest…. all on account of Paki hatred… If one believes in what urstruly says, your “team” should immediately get in touch with your supervisors re the need to slightly change your strategy here :) [pun intended, just kidding, not a serious comment]``

The word `jihadi` was introduced into subcontinental vocabulary by Indians? Maybe its something to do with statistics regarding their much curtailed-lifespan on earth approaching epidemic proportions. The term Ummah comes(as far as I am concerned) comes from repeated assertions on this board that all Muslims have a common bond and must stick together against all nonMuslims. Also from declarations of heads of state(oh I saw somewhere on chowk that nation-states are irrelevant, right?) in international conferences like the OIC which those fortunates who scrupulously stay away from media may miss.

And you are yourself doing the Ummah thing again. You seem to be saying ``If India cares about its Muslims, it must stop making up its own mind about policies of nonIndian Muslims`` . Sorry, but India should pursue policies which suit the interests, inclinations and aspirations of Indian Muslims, not policies spelled out by Pakistani/Palestinian/or any other Muslims.

And sorry to disappoint, but there are plenty more like me where I come from, the Government of India would go down-under trying to get all those millions on the payroll.

Sadhana

fairdinkum #214
My Godgiven mind has reached this conclusion that you are not being objective in this matter. The article is entitled ``Bigotry, racism and the American media``. YOU want to keep the media out, that YOUR choice, not mine.

I have posted a number of messages on this board and others on what I think of the Palestinian issue and the media(and other interactors) opinions in it. You think its skewed, that your problem. And frankly, I donot consider that I have to prove or demonstrate `humanist` impulses before ANY audience here on chowk but since we are on the subject, I would have thought 100 Palestanians and 10 Israelis dead made the issue rather self-evident.

My point, which I made to Rsaxena/others too from the other side of the argument as well to yourself and scout too was to leave religion out of the issue. That point is demonstrated here in your mail. The reason for leaving religion out of a discussion is not that religion will become irrelevant, no, religious/racist bigotry will just become covert instead of overt. But keeping religion out of a discussion of issues allows those who choose to speak from their own judgement and conscience to be free to do so. My previous post was intended to underline that point as well as the fact that SOME of western media is not bigotted to the extent is assumed on this board. The National Public Radio is financed by American taxpayer dollars. There was a huge rally in Israel on the anniversary of Rabin`s assassination recently as well as a large gathering at the funeral of his wife Leah who died recently. You may or maynot know, both were firm believers in the peace process. All these factors do contribute to make the issue less black and white as does the incompetence of Arab leaders.

Its nice to keep shouting `oppressed`. OK so they are oppressed, everyone knew that, so whats next? I certainly think theres more humanism in doing what it takes to prevent such flareups in future than keep breastbeating till eternity.

Sadhana

Re: sadna

Your statement:

[You say ``Explain the term ‘ummah’.``
Well, here is a recent example:
``This is the difference between ``Muslims/Pakisanis`` and supporters of Israel on this site.``]

Sadhana,

You are also quoting stuff out of context now. People on this board have been lumping all sympathizers of Palestinians as “Muslims/Pakistanis/fundamentalists/extremist religious people” … Also, terms like ‘ummah’ ‘jihad’ etc. seems to be in vogue with the ignorant lot i.e. “supporters of Israel” … and they use these terms freely when talking to any person they believe to be a “Pakistani/Muslim” in order to humiliate them or put them down.

Here is a recent example of a statement directed at me personally:

“I am not living in your Mullah Omar`s paradise, the question doesn`t arise. Obviously you folks are unschooled in the concept of free speech.”

It is surprising that anyone on this site who knows my position re people like Mullah Omar/jihadis should make such statements. But then, I happen to be a “Muslim/Pakistani”, so it makes sense?

Coming back to your recent comments (re Palestinians), I have no doubts about the FACT that Palestinians are an oppressed lot. You have your own logic [skewed in my view] to work things out re this human tragedy… I found your excitement over that advert, which without “implying anyone is a bad or disbelieving Jew or infidel” nevertheless distorts the situation Palestinian people face, rather interesting… who, amongst sympathizers of Palestinians, has used terms like infidels etc. on this board? In contrast to that, did you notice that “supporters of Israel” have constantly used terms like ummah, Muslims etc? … Is it ok to use these terms?

You still seem to have doubts about who is oppressed and who is the oppressor in the Israeli – Palestinian conflict [your assertion that the issue is not black and white]… this is amazing – coming from a woman of your intelligence. Perhaps, as scout suggests, it is time to “use your own mind instead of reading/posting articles from biased news articles” as a routine to perform your daily duty :) [pun intended]

The general trend amongst “supporters of Israel” on this site seems to be to support Israel [not always as openly or as clumsily as perhaps some posts on this board would suggest – some are really subtle, and careful, and use a sophisticated skewed style of writing to hide their bias] because “Pakistanis/Muslims” support Palestinians… Amongst these people, majority, unfortunately is Indian. However, I don’t think that wholesale condemnation of entire Muslim population of the world [in whatever name(s) – Jihadis, ummah, fundamentalists etc. etc.] is in India’s national interest…. all on account of Paki hatred… If one believes in what urstruly says, your “team” should immediately get in touch with your supervisors re the need to slightly change your strategy here :) [pun intended, just kidding, not a serious comment]