|
May 2009 Edition
World Hypocrisy Regarding Israel
by Shishir Thadani
Throughout the world, shrill criticism of Israel
has come to be regarded as a "litmus test" for ones "progressive"
credentials. Gratuitous attacks on Israel are worn as a badge of honor
by liberals and "progressives" alike. Sympathy for the suffering of
the "hapless" and "innocent" Palestinians remains highly fashionable
not only amongst leftists of all stripes, it is also considered a
hallmark of ones "secularism" and "sophistication".
In the developing world and in the so-called Non-Aligned Movement -
solidarity with 'Palestine' was (and remains) a must. In India, so
staunch was the Congress support for "Palestinian" rights that Israel
was one of only two countries requiring special permission for travel.
For many decades, Zubin Mehta was unwelcome in India if he came with
the Israel Philharmonic.
Even as most Indians sympathized with Jews as victims of an
unprecedented holocaust, few "secular" Indians recognized the right of
the Jews to a homeland where they could feel truly safe and secure. In
part, this was because the Indian education system taught Indians
virtually nothing of the long history of violence and abuse that had
been meted out towards the Jews for over a millenium by virtually all
the European nations. Not only did the Romans persecute the Jews and
waged war against them, European pogroms against the Jews
have been recorded since at least the 11th century. Jews were
massacred in France and Germany in 1096, in Britian in 1189-90, and
again in Germany in 1348. Islamic Spain massacred 4000 Jews in 1066 -
just a few decades after 6000 Jews had been slaughtered in Islamic
Morocco. Throughout the Islamic Empires Jews were treated as "Dhimmis"
and subject to apartheid like discrimination. Their fate was little
better in the Russian empire and pogroms against Jews in Russia and the
Ukraine were all too frequent in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As
a consequence, Jews were frequently on the move - building their lives
from scratch in new settlements and millions simply forsook or
concealed their Jewish identities to escape terror and brutalization.
Most Indians are also unaware that the plight of Jews in the Islamic
empires of the Middle East was also an unhappy one.The Quran sanctifies
violence against non-believers in at least 109 verses. And numerous
commentaries in the Hadith confirm that violence against the "infidel",
against the "non-believers", against "idol-worshippers" and polytheists, the Pagans and
the Jews is not only permissable, it is even laudable and supposedly
brings great merit to the "true" Muslim. While intelligent and
peace-loving Muslims disagree with taking such injunctions
literally, literalist interpreters of the Quran have found ample
justification for the rape of infidel women and children, the
enslavement or slaughter of entire "infidel" communities, acts of arson
against all types of "infidel" property as well as arbitrary acts of
economic expropriation.
Just as India's highly sanitized official histories have masked the
horrendous barbarity of India's Islamic invasions by slave-traders such
as Ghauri and Ghazni (and many others), the gruesome history of the
Islamic Arabs in killing and enslaving hundreds of millions of
Africans has also been kept hidden from the Indian public. Likewise,
few Indians are aware of the depradations faced by Jews in the Arab
peninsula.
Curiously,even the violent expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan (which was
tantamount to a genocide) did
not change the attitude of the "secular" Indian intelligentsia. To this
day, authors like Sita Ram Goel and K.S. Lal who have attempted to
document the history of Islamic invasions in India (by using material
left behind by the invaders and conquerors themselves and other
authentic records) remain objects of derision and contempt. Their
scholarly works languish in oblivion and they are frequently reviled in
academic circles. That the invaders took inspiration (or cover) from the
Quran is also not very well known.
Most Indians remain blissfully ignorant of the many negative statements
that apply to infidels such as Hindus and Jews in the Quran and even
more so in the Hadith. Historians Schweitzer and Perry, argue that the
Hadith are "even more scathing (than the Qur'an) in attacking the
Jews":
"They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can
never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and
stubborn; they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify
scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are ritually unclean, a
foul odor emanating from them - such is the image of the Jew in
classical Islam, degraded and malevolent".
Most Indians are thus quite unaware of the long history of
oppression that Jews experienced not only in Christian Europe but also
in the Islamic Middle East and North Africa. Zionism was thus an almost
inevitable by-product of this long history of violent intolerance and
subjugation. For Jews, the creation of the state of Israel was a
defensive measure -
hardly the means of imperial expansion that it has come to signify in
typical leftist jargon.
On
the other hand, the Islamic state has no such redeeming
characteristics. The rise of Islam in the Arab pensinsula came about at
the expense of numerous non-Islamic communities that once thrived
there. The Quran itself admits to the existence of many tribes of
Pagans, Jews, "idol worshippers" and other "non-believers" in the
major cities of what is now Saudi Arabia. There is also evidence that
the city of Mecca was once populated by worshippers of the goddess
"Allaath" from where the word Allah derives. Obviously the Islamic
"purity" of present day Saudi Arabia could only have been achieved by
the slaughter or forced conversions of several unwilling tribes (and
numerous verses in both the Quran and Hadith suggest as much). But
so-called Indian experts on the Middle East have mechanically accepted
the patriarchal narratives where such uncomfortable aspects of Arab
history have been artfully veiled or distorted.
Having been willing participants in conjuring up a highly sentimental
and mythically romantic view of Islam in India, it is a very small leap
to unquestioningly accept the Arab discourse on Israel.
Even though Jews were victims of British deceit no less than Hindus and
pro-Indian Muslims, the newly independant state of India took its
cues on Israel either from the Arabs or the Soviets neither of whom had
ever fully confronted their own long history of anti-Jewish prejudice.
Once the US became the prime backer of both Pakistan and Israel, it was
easy for the patriotic Indian to accept all Arab claims - that
Israel was merely a "settler" state or a "colonial" state out to deny
the "Palestinians" their legitimate rights.
But in much of this discourse, several important points that could
materially shift the contuours of the debate have been omitted.That
there was a significant Jewish presence in Israel even when it was
ruled by the Ottoman Turks (before the articulation of the Zionist
ideal) is conveniently ignored.That Jews had once lived in large
numbers throughout the Arab peninsula is obscured and that
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia have been completely emptied of
their Jewish populations is seen as of no consequence.
All attention is focused on European Jewish settlers but little
is made of the numerous Arab migrations into what is now Israel. For
instance, few Indians are aware that Yasser Arafat was Egyptian - and
had no family history in any of the disputed territories. That over half
of Israel's population comprises indigenous Jews or
North African and Middle Eastern Jewish refugees who now have no place
else
to go is rarely acknowledged. Palestinian "refugees" are seen as
helpless victims but Jews expelled (or vacated) from Jordan, Gaza or the West Bank are
never seen as victims.
Above all, no critic of Israel questions the right of Saudi Arabia,
Iran or Pakistan to be totalitarian (or near totalitarian) Islamic states. To this day, there are over a
million non-Jewish Arabs residing in Israel who enjoy voting rights and
the freedom to organize under their own political parties. In
contrast, Saudi Arabia doesn't even allow non-Muslims tourist visas let
alone the right to live there permanently, and Jews
living in the 'West Bank' are described as "illegal settlers". Pakistan eliminated almost its entire
Hindu and Sikh population 62 years ago, and in Iran, there is little
political or social freedom for anyone. By every modern criterion -
whether it is gender equity, access to modern education or rights of
biological minorities such as lesbian and gay citizens, Israel is far
ahead of any Muslim majority nation. The discrimination faced by Hindus in Bangladesh or Tamils in
Malaysia greatly exceeds anything experienced by Israel's
non-Jewish Arabs. Virtually every Arab nation sanctions some level
of legal discrimination against non-Muslims, yet, it is Israel
alone which is deemed a pariah nation.
For many years, Indians had the illusion that the PLO was a secular
organization and that the Palestinians were a separate nationality. But
the charter of the PLO makes it clear that the Palestinians never
thought of themselves as a people distinct from the Arabs and the
annihilation of Israel remained on the PLO charter for decades. Even
today, members of PLO's armed wing continue to state openly that
regardless of any peace process the destruction of Israel remains
the strategic goal of every "patriotic" Palestinian.
Originally, Jordan was meant to be the
state for all non-Jewish Arabs including "Palestinians". Even as the
Jews have lost all rights over Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Algeria and Saudi
Arabia, the burden of solving the "Palestinian" issue has been placed
exclusively on the head of Israel, and it is
Israel who is constantly rebuked for not making progress towards a "two-state" solution.
Most hypocritical is the charge that Israel is a "colonial settler"
state when it is the Christian Europeans who have colonized far more
territory than any other people on the planet. All the American
nations - from North to South owe their modern roots to colonial
settler states that eliminated very significant proportions
of the
native population. Australia and New Zealand were likewise colonial
settler states. And when the Arab states first came into existence,
they too, were colonial settler states destroying the political and
cultural autonomy of the tribes they conquered or annihilated. Spain -
one of Israel's fiercest critics has yet to acknowledge any of the
demands of its own Basque minority. And whereas Israel is the only
country that Jews can truly call home, Arab Muslims can call more than
a dozen countries their home (most of whom are blessed with some of the
world's most precious natural resources).
In fact, the Arabs and the Europeans want to eat their cake and have it
too. Collectively, it was the Christian Europeans and Islamic Arabs who
forced the Jews to seek a separate homeland. Now, these are the same
people who harangue Israel when it tries to defend itself against acts
of unrelenting Islamic terror.
Arab Muslim demands for more concessions and more territory from Israel
are none too different from the never-ending demands for more
concessions from India over Kashmir. The truth is that doctrinaire
Muslims can never yield any territory once captured by Islam. That is
essentially what is enshrined in the charter of Hamas and that is what
has always propelled the actions of Jehadi terrorists in India. For too
many Jehadi Muslims, the whole world must be brought under Islam,
starting with territories that were once under Islamic rule (but lost
due to the modern era of democratization wherein Jews and Hindus were
able to reclaim a part of the territory they had previously lost.)
Those who keep making excuses for such Arab or Pakistani obduracy fail to see that such demands for territory will never cease.
Once they get one concession, they will immediately up the ante and
demand new ones as can be seen by the expanding tentacles of the Taliban
in Swat and much of Western Pakistan.
The constant demands on Israel to make progress towards a "two-state"
solution stand in dramatic contrast to the utter silence of the world
when it comes to any solution for Sri Lanka's Tamils. Unlike the
Palestinians who are all united in working towards the ultimate
destruction of the state of Israel, the Tamils are quite willing to
share the island with the Sinhalas. Likewise, the Tamils of Malaysia
are only demanding equality - none has called for the destruction of the Sri Lankan or Malaysian state.
Even though the Palestinians have themselves defined themselves as
Arabs or Muslims and could therefore be re-settled in more than half a
dozen
nations without any problem, the world acts as though they are a
distinct nationality that deserves a separate nation. But China's
Tibetans - who have a distinct language and culture going back
over a thousand years that is not replicated anywhere else are
denied even
the right to autonomy in their own homeland. But there are no
accusations against China for being a "settler" state or a "colonial"
usurper. There are no wild accusations against the "Chinese" lobby as
there are against the "Jewish" lobby or the "Israeli" lobby.
Sudan's non Muslims in the South and non-Arabs in the West are much
poorer and much worse off than the residents of Gaza or Israel's West
Bank and the plight of refugees in Darfur is far worse than the
situation of Palestinian refugees (who could easily be accomodated by
Egypt, Lebanon, Syria Jordan and Saudi Arabia). But criticism of Sudan
remains muted, at best. There is no similar worldwide outcry against
the Sudanese regime.
There are no comparable calls for economic boycotts against Sudan - or
statehood for Darfur, or any solidarity for the victims of any despotic Arab
regime that rules with an iron
hand.
The Kurds of Turkey - who for decades have been denied all linguistic
and cultural rights and remain far bigger victims than the
"Palestinians" also elicit little sympathy from the Western or Islamic
world even as Muslim-majority Turkey is permitted to rant and rave
against Israel for its alleged intransigence and human rights abuses at all important
international gatherings. Dictatorial regimes like those in Syria,
Egypt and Iran and oppressive monarchies like the Saudi or Qatari regimes
are permitted to hold forth on "human rights" abuses by Israel even as
their own dismal records are seldom subject to any comparable scrutiny.
It is not even as if the Europeans have fully compensated for their
crimes of the holocaust or colonial rule that they should have any
moral right to hector Israel. If they had any sense of balance, they
would be first calling upon the Islamic states to reform themselves;
but typically, the Islamic states reject (out of hand) any genuine
progress towards secular human rights.
Instead, of kowtowing to Islamic hegemons, the West could provide a lot
more aid and support to enlightened reformers and progressive
dissidents in the Arab and Islamic states. But such is their prejudice
that it is the democratic
state of Israel which is repeatedly asked to make concessions that
would be most detrimental to its security and survival.
It is high time that Indians understand this hypocrisy and rise above
the unprincipled chorus of voices that heaps insults upon Israel even
as it remains silent on the real crimes of national oppression and
exploitation that continue unabated in the real world.
That will also help Indians to come to terms with how so many Western
nations put almost the entire burden of maintaining peace in the Indian
subcontinent on India even when the real provocateur is Pakistan.
Understanding Israel's situation would help India deal more
firmly with sanctimonious calls for constantly appeasing its unreformed enemies.
In fact, if the West were genuinely serious about preventing future
9-11s, it would stop blaming Israel but look more closely at the
history of Islamic invasions and conquests. It would look more closely
at how medieval Islamic imperialists enslaved non-Muslims in Africa and India. It would look
more closely at the religious and cultural psychology of the violent
Islamic Jehadist for whom the destruction of Israel is but a stepping
stone to ultimately conquering the entire world.
Instead of making friends with genuinely progressive Muslims who want
to improve their own societies and live in peace and cooperation with
their non-Muslim neighbors, too many in India and the rest of the world
make untenable excuses for those Muslims who shun progress and impose
their extreme and intolerant political outlooks on those too weak
to fight back.
While modern civilization
can co-exist with peace-loving non-sectarian Muslims anywhere, it
cannot co-exist in peace with violent Jehadi Muslims (or their covert backers).
Those that align with (or apologize for) such medieval forces have no
right to be considered "progressive", let alone "democratic" or
"socialist". Any form of appeasement of such forces can only lead to
more death and destruction.
Related Essays:
India's Surreal 'Secularism'
'Secularism' or 'Sickularism'?
Islamization and
the Arab conquest of Sindh
Back for other selections
from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues
confronting India and the region.
Also see South Asian
History or Topics in Indian History for relevant
essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent.
(If you liked our site, or would
like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach,
please click here)
|