Shalom or Salaam

Adnan:

You are missing the basic point. It is not India that is treating the Palestenians shabbily. It is the Israelis. Therefore your example hoilds true for Israelis who wish to improve their lot.

OTOH, I am saying that though we may not have slavery, we have enough moral wrongs in our own land that we should correct before giving lessons to others. The outrage directed in defense of Palestenians should rather be directed towards reducing poverty in our own country, increasing rule of law, increasing economic opportunities. The yehoods and arabs can sort out their own mess.

Stuka 72

Agree with you.

Just my two cents. We supported Palestenians and snubbed Israel for long. It was not neccessarily only justice and blah blah. The policy made sense then, Israel was not of much use to us strategically.

Now things have changed so we changed. Now we support both Palestenians and Israel. And we need not worry about problem whole world has. We have enough of our own.

We hugged Saddams, Ayatollahs, Assads, why even Mushi. What is wrong with Sharon. Oh he is not Muslim eh? It was invitation to PM of Israel. Sharon is one today. If there was democratic coup (a la Mayawati/Mulayam) and a peacenik would have become PM, he would have come instead and we would welcomed him same way.

Yogiraj Patil

Faruk:
``Dionysus touched a raw nerve here ah! We view events through the prism of our preconceived notions, prejudices or whatever you want to call it. If you want to know why a lot of Muslims left for Pakistan watch a movie called “garam hawa” it’s a good place to start``

I never said or implied that all Muslims of India wanted a new country (many did not!) or that all of them left India voluntarily. Garam Hawa was a great film. And quite realistic, too. If I remember correctly, it showed how one brother left for the Promised Land (creating problem for the other who remained).

It is my firm belief that India`s treatment of its Muslims is nothing to be proud of. And I am not talking only about the post Babri period. Even the Congress govts. really didn`t do enough to address the real needs of Muslims and to bring them fully into the national mainstream.

But you are right. Dionysus did touch a raw nerve. India deserves every criticism of its treatment of its Muslim minority by Asia Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other national and international human rights agencies. But when a Pakistani criticises India`s treatment of her Muslims, it gets my goat every time. Statistics do not lie. Let Pakistanis bring back the Hindu-Sikh proportion of their population to the same level where it was at the time of the partition. Then I will listen even to them.

Until then, let them hang their heads in shame and pray that we do not go down to their level of getting rid of the `mareez` to get rid of the `marz`.

Ahmadzai:
The above responds to your post too. And yes, I agree that Muslim haris in the interior of Sindh also suffer greatly, just as the poor people of India suffer, but it does not mean that Muslims in India do not face problems peculiar to them.

stuka:

Here`s a poll for you:

Prior to the American Civil War, most Southern businessmen insisted that slavery was beneficial for the US economy. And, in fact, it was. The unlimited supply of cheap labor made the plantations of the South extremely competitive.

Based on your twisted logic of always putting national interests before one`s conscience, slavery should have never been abolished. After all, it benefited the U.S.

This is not to say that national interests should always take a back seat to morality, but to speak up against what one perceives as unjust or immoral (whether wrong or right), takes a lot of courage. I do not agree with Farzana`s basic premise regarding Sharon`s visit, but I admire her temerity.

Beady:


``there was even an Indian Jewish general in the 1971 war (the name skips me right now)``

Yes, it was Lt General JFR Jacob.

Quick Poll to Indians:

If Palestenians were scrweing Jewish Israelis, but were in a position to sell us high quality arms as well as increase trade, how many of you lot would object to dealing with the former?

I speak for myself..I would have no problem.

Faruk:

With re to your post, that is true. Also even the Punjabis who went from India to Pakistan did well as well. Zia was actually a Jullunderi, and a middle class one at that.

I resent people trying to make this a religious issue. That bloody fool Naqshabandi, when RSaxena pointed out that India has excellent relations with Iran as well, responds with ``Shias have always stabbed Sunnis in the back``...

That is why I say, if people like this call me communal, damn Ii will wear this as a badge of honor.

I may be wrong but I understand that we have had Indian Jews in relatively high positions, State Governors (Punjab Governor Jacob) and there was even an Indian Jewish general in the 1971 war (the name skips me right now). Not to mention those oddball theories about the fact that one of the lost tribes of Israel ended up in Mizoram. So there is a fair bit of Jewish presence in India. Furthermore, I don`t have the reference to hand, but I believe that there were several flights from India to Israel as part of the migration into Israel in the late 1940`s. The funny thing is while reading about the protests in Delhi. At one time, Zionism was the darling of the left and now a visceral distaste has arisen. Strange bedfellows indeed. I may well be wrong, but I would be willing to plonk serious amounts of dosh (pick your currency) on the fact that polls will come up with the fact that a majority of Indians would love this Israel Indian relationship.

Just a final comment about Brajesh Mishra. He is the national security advisor, and I would have found it very strange if he had not suggested a tie-up with Israel and USA to fight terror. If he hadn`t, I would have said, fire the incompetent fellow and get someone who can get these things going. I had written something about it in the Hindustan times and the storm of vituperation that descended on me was amazing. Oh! well.

Dost-mittar at # 60:

Your over-sympathetic and highly emotional posts for Pakistani minorities seem to be a ploy to divert attention from secular and pluralist India`s treatment of its minorities. tell me how is their plight different from a Pakistani Muslim of the same profile, say living in the interior of Sindh Punjab or Balochistan?

Some Indians also cite the migration of Hindu families from Tharparker district into India and living in the refugee camps there as an example of Muslim atrocities on them. This is distortion of facts. Both Hindus and Muslim families have migrated from the drought stricken primarily `Hindu` region due to climatic reasons. That is a region in which Holy is celebrated just like it may be any where in India. I have personally witnessed that and have participated in it.

At the international level too, this `do it youselves and blame others` game is being played with impunity.

1. Israelis are killing Palestinian children and youths at will, but make the world believe as if its the Jewish kids who are dying everyday.

2. Indian army in Kashmir is killing innocent Kashmiris everyday and also shelling Pakistan administered Kashmir killing citizens there, but India makes the world believe that its Pakistani incited ``Cross border terrorism``.

3. The coalition forces are persecuting Pakhtoons in Afghanistan and terming their resentment as incited by Talibans entering Afghanistan from Pakistan.

Dost, you cannot shed tears for others sitting in your own cocoon. Please interact with Palestinians, Kashmiris, Pakistani Hindus and Muslims and Afghan Pakhtoons at personal level to see the truth for yourself, except if you want to shed tears to divert the attention from real problems.

Re : Article
I think we should have only one ideology in supporting a cause “Our Interest” that’s it. I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people, but I don’t want to fight their war for them.

Regards,

Faruk

Re : Stuka # 14
“Damn right we are newly privileged and proud of it. Victims of Indian partition were rotting in refugee camps around the same time as Arabs. What we have made with our lives is thanks to our own grit. No sops, no oil, just forward thinking, putting the past behind us and working. And why should we not draw conclusions that hard work and looking ahead pay off?”

No gainsaying the grit and hard work that has made people displaced in the partition. But I think that the Indian govt. of the time and ordinary Indians were very helpful to the displaced peoples from Pakistan. India was not a rich country but I think she did what she could.

Regards,

Faruk

Re : dost-mittar # 60

“The last time I checked, there are millions of Mohajirs who are proud that they went to the new promised land for which they had fought. These Mohajirs are no different from the jews of Europe and the U.S who went to their promised land.”

Dionysus touched a raw nerve here ah! We view events through the prism of our preconceived notions, prejudices or whatever you want to call it. If you want to know why a lot of Muslims left for Pakistan watch a movie called “garam hawa” it’s a good place to start.

“At worst, they are being asked by an expanding lunatic fringe to give up their separae identity.”

It is interesting how different perspectives are view from the other side of the coin….


Regards,

Faruk

Here is a nice article on Israel

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=31162

Lions of Zion
The problem is not Israel. It is the rest of the neighbourhood
Bibek Maitra



Mani Shankar Aiyar’s rantings (‘‘BJP’s favourite West Asian’’, September 5) usually don’t deserve attention. But given the timing of his article — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is currently in India — a rebuttal is necessary.

To begin with, Israel was not a gift of western powers to Jews after World War II. Even after the Balfour Declaration of 1919 and the promise of a Jewish homeland, the British were in no mood to leave. It was only when their mandate expired and they were confronted by a war of attrition by Jewish freedom fighting units such as Hagannah, Irgun and Stern that they decided to quit Palestine.

To be part of an organisation fighting colonial powers is no crime. Sharon has every reason to be proud of this past.

The United Nations voted for the creation of Israel and Palestine to live side by side. The Jews accepted the verdict but the Arabs did not. As soon as the UN gave its decision, the neighbouring Arab countries came together to attack Israel. They failed , Israel survived. The remains of the Palestinian state were gobbled up by Jordan.

Next we come to Deir Yassin. This was an Arab village located on an elevation overlooking the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway. During the Arab siege of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem in 1948, Israeli relief convoys were regularly ambushed. (The remnants of these convoys can still be seen if you drive from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem).

Israeli intelligence got reports that Arab irregulars had infiltrated Deir Yassin to attack the convoys. The Israelis entered the village, a fight ensued and Israeli forces won. To set the record straight, Sharon had no role to play in Deir Yassin.

Then we come to the Quibya massacre. This was a time when Palestinian militants used to slip into Israeli territory at night and attack border villages. The village of Quibya was such a centre for Palestinian mujaheedin and under Jordanian control.

One night, militants entered the Israeli border village of Yahud and killed a woman and her two children. The Israeli army was ordered to take punitive action. The 101 border unit, led by a young officer named Ariel Sharon, entered Quibya village and asked all inhabitants to leave. Nearly 2,700 did so.

Fearing arrest, a few mujahideen and their families hid in cellars. The 101 unit blew up houses so Quibya could no longer be a base for attacks. The fatalities that occurred were of people hiding in the cellars.

Next come Sabra and Shatilla. These massacres of Palestinians were caused by the Maronite Christian falangists militia. They felt Palestinians had upset the demographic equation in Lebanon.

Israel’s fault was this massacre took place when it was in the midst of clearing operations in Lebanon. Sharon’s fault was he was then defence minister. To blame Sharon for this is like blaming Indira Gandhi for the Nellie massacre in Assam, 1983, because she was prime minister and had foisted an election on the state.

We now come to the comparison of Jenin with Gujarat. Jenin was a factory of Hamas terrorists and suicide bombers. Does Aiyar wish to say Gujarat was similar? I can only sympathise when he compares Sharon and Narendra Modi. In his urge to condemn Modi, he has unwittingly given him a larger than life image.

If the BJP-led government takes inspiration from Israel, what’s wrong? Israel has amalgamated people from different backgrounds into one classless, casteless society. Akshenazis (European Jews), Shepardis (Asian Jews), Baghdadis, Bene Israelis from India, Morroccan Jews, Iranian Jews have merged and devoted themselves to their national dream. Does it not offer inspiration? They have made the deserts of Palestine bloom. Their water conservation and ecological awareness is world class. Can this not inspire India?

Aiyar concludes with a reference to the Oslo accord. Israel took a lead in Oslo. It resurrected Yaseer Arafat. It released hundreds of Palestinian terrorists. It allowed exiles to return to the West Bank and Gaza. What did Israel get in return? Intifada.

Aiyar’s real motive is the destruction of Israel by demographic change. On the one hand, he talks of continuing massacres of Palestinians and, on the other, of the growth in Palestinian population and of his desire that it outgrows the Jews in Israel. This is a paradox only he can explain.

The author is a former president of the Indo-Israeli Friendship Society

Our forefathers done one great mistake at partition. when Pakistan forced Hindu to leave Pakistan our great leader of that times singing song of unity and harmony and secularism. If that time Hindus forced Muslims to leave India in same way we are more secure and we don’t have daily internal threat. we are get the harvest of the mistake of our leaders at partition. even our single leader at partition time get time to read hatred doctrine called Quran we are more safe today.evne i read somewhere at time of partition there is proposal to exchange hindu and sikh of pakistan to muslim of india.even jinnah and saradar is agree but nehru who always lived in fool`s paradise oppose it.that time muslim of india participate in pakistan movement gr8 deal but when pakistan created most of choose to live in india and love to pakistan.

Here is another one

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=31163

Maneaters of the Desert
Israeli democracy is a facade. For non-Jews it is an unequal, unjust society
Shelley Walia



As India welcomes Ariel Sharon, prime minister of Israel, the prospects for West Asia look ominous. The world does little to reprimand Israel. Even India has shown signs of favouring Israeli policy, though the left liberal still stands with the Palestinian cause.

Let the intellectual not hesitate to voice concern at the discrimination and oppression, racism and truculent aggression that are central to the region’s violence. India must do a balancing act that does not ignore the rights of the Palestinians.

In the wake of the Mumbai blasts, the Indian leadership must not forget support for Muslims of West Asia is crucial, not only for economic reasons, but politically expedient in putting an end to the hegemony of anti-Muslim Hindu sentiment. Sharon’s brand of Zionism is a breeding ground for racial politics.

India must consider Sharon’s track record, replete with assassinations of alleged Palestinian terrorists, bulldozing houses, starving and humiliating an entire people, confining them to their villages and responding to acts of terror by punishing non-combatant civilians. The occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip in the 1967 war led to a form of colonialism that continues till today.

A section of intellectual opinion holds Zionism as synonymous with democratic principles of equality of rights. Quoting Harvard sociologist Natham Glazer, a scholar in the area of Israeli politics and Zionism, Noam Chomsky highlights the often argued position of such intellectuals, unaware of the reality of Jewish racism.

Glazer is of the view that, ‘‘The state created by Zionism is a modern secular state in which civil rights are granted to all people of whatever origin and religion.’’ Such an admiration of Israel’s secularism and equality for all its citizens, may they be Arab, is rather ill-founded.

There is a ban on ‘‘inter-denominational marriage’’. The predominance of religion oversees even selection to the ‘‘Israeli basketball league’’. The orthodox rabbinate is the final authority in deciding who is a Jew. It must be clear there is no such thing as an ‘‘Israeli nation’’; there is only a ‘‘Jewish nation’’. Israel is the self-governing state of the Jewish people, not of its citizens.

Within Israel there is strict control on Arabs in the use of public funds or ownership of land or employment opportunities. The Israeli-controlled media churns out negative views on Arab culture. Similar criticism and ridicule of, say, Jews in America would be have been inconceivable ‘‘outside of the literature of the Ku Klux Klan’’.

On the other hand, Zionism itself has often been interpreted. Scholars like Gershom Scholem have stood against a political Zionism that imitates German imperialism, embracing the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha-Am, stressing inner work (Innernarbeit) and an ethical core.

Many scholars object to an equation between Jews and Zionism, arguing there are dissident Jews who believe it is wrong to make Zionism the sole state policy, rob the area of peace and deprive Palestinians of their homes. Democracy and the right to practice a different religious way of life often clash with the extreme practice of Zionism.

Judith Butler, an eminent academic and a Jew, supports dissident Jews who ‘‘maintain that the violent appropriation of Palestinian land, and the dislocation of 700,000 Palestinians was an unsuitable foundation on which to build a state’’.

There is thus a critical alternative lobby that looks for Israeli-Palestine peace and justice. These are issues that need to be taken up by India’s foreign ministry and intelligentsia. Whereas there should be absolute support for the Palestinian cause without supporting the suicide bombings, Israel must have the right to exist, but only on the principles of democratic co-existence with different ethnic minorities.

Blind and short-sighted support for Israel and ignoring Sharon’s brutal actions represent an ideological shift for India. Meanwhile the Arab world looks on at India’s indiscreet and hasty dealings with these military entrepreneurs. A basketful of dollars spent on high technology weapons from Israel will bring in a truckload of wrath from the Arab Muslim world.

Learning to fight terrorism from a racist terrorist state is unethical. Even if it is diplomatically convenient.

The author is professor of English, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and currently Rothermere Fellow at the University of Oxford

Dionysus:

``For every Hindu or Sikh expelled from West Punjab a Muslim was expelled from East Punjab.``

True. Nobody said only Hindus and Sikh have a monopoly on suffering. What itch are you getting up your backside then?


`` Further, the partition of Punjab was DEMANDED by the Hindus and Sikhs. Partition of Punjab was your demand and you, therefore, bear primary responsiblity for what followed. ``

Yes, in reaction to the Partition of INDIA demanded by Muslims. Does that mean you bear responsibility for what followed then and what follows now? I know your Seargent Major genes don`t allow for much thinking but at least try and do so before you post.

By your logic, Hindus and Sikh demanded partition of Punjab therefore they are responsible for all the killing that took place. Well, then I guess Mmuslims bear all responsibility for being killed in the rest of India right? Gadhey.