Thursday, September 9, 2010

EID MUBARAK TO ONE AND ALL






EID MUBARAK

TO ONE AND ALL

AN INVITATION TO SHARE HOW HUMAN EXPERIENCE IS ENRICHED BY A FASTING REGIME THAT TEACHES SELF-CONTROL, SELF-APPRECIATION OF ALL HUMAN GOODNESS THAT IS WITHIN US ALL AND NEEDS TO BE REJUVENATED AGAIN AND AGAIN TO SPREAD THE SPIRIT OF KINDNESS AND KINSHIP AMONG ALL HUMAN KIND


GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI
2010

CAIR Video: Muslims Battle Anti-Islam Sentiment

Crescent obscured: Indian Muslims in Britain - By Omar Khalidi

Crescent obscured: Indian Muslims in Britain

By Omar Khalidi
Accompanied by my nephew Mansoor Baig, our car rolled out of Palmers’ Grove in North London onto M-4 motorway and reached Woking, Surrey in about an hour on Sunday July 11, 2010. Carpeted with beautiful countryside, Surrey is the most wooded county in England and is full of enticing attractions. To the Johnny tourist and many westerners, Woking, Surrey, England, UK may be associated with the town in which the Martians first land in H.G. Wells’ famous science fiction novel The War of the Worlds. But to many Indian Muslims, Woking evokes nothing but the Shah Jahan Mosque; the beautiful, little mosque was built with the funds of Shah Jahan Begum, (1838-1901) the female ruler of Bhopal in central India.



Inside of Shahjahan mosque
Woking mosque has the distinction not only of being a mosque built by a female ruler, but is also the first purpose-built mosque in Britain, which was constructed in 1889. This strikingly beautiful mosque constructed with Bath and Bargate stone is in Indo-Saracenic style so common in the subcontinent during the British Raj. Adjacent to the Mosque is the Salar Jang Memorial Hall, for which Salar Jang II donated money in 1886.[1] It serves as a meeting hall and library. Sir Abbas Ali Baig (d. 1933) of Bombay was also actively associated with this Mosque, as acknowledged in an obituary.[2] The mosque is appropriately located on 149 Oriental Road, not far from the railway station in Woking.
Not far from the Shah Jahan Mosque is the Brookwood cemetery, the largest in Britain. It has a Muslim section within it. As we strolled down the cemetery, we came across many famous men who are buried here: Syed Amir Ali (1849-1928) an influential leader and author; two translators of the Qur’an into English, Marmaduke Muhammad Pickthall (1875-1936) and Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872-1953); Muhammad Yunus, (1884-1952) a prime minister of Bihar in the 1930s; and Faiz Badruddin Tyabji (1877-1950) a judge of the Bombay High Court belonging to the famous Sulaymani Bohra clan. There is another major British Muslim landmark associated with Indian Muslims. The Regents’ Park Mosque (known now as London Central Mosque/Islamic Cultural Center) was originally intended to be named as Nizamia Mosque after the Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan (reigned 1911-1948; died 1967). [3] Later on the trust and the assets of the proposed Nizamia mosque were merged with those of the Regent’s Park mosque. A picture dated Friday 4 June 1937 shows his son Nawab Azam Jah (1907- 1970) laying the foundation stone of the mosque.[4] The mosques and the cemetery reminded me that Indian Muslims have a long history in Britain dating back to the year 1600 when the English East India Company began.



Salar Jang Hall
Several thousand Indians journeyed to Britain from 1600 to 1850s, mostly ayahs accompanying the sahibs; lascars abroad ships; and munshis and envoys of Indian rulers petitioning the King-Emperor. From around 1870s, wealthy Indian parents began to send their sons for higher education and examinations in British educational institutions. Labor shortages after the World War II (1939-45) forced Britain to import labor from India and other countries. Soon a large number of Indian and Pakistani enclaves sprang up in many parts of Britain. By the turn of the twenty-first century, Indians are as common as the Irish in Britain. Indian presence is obvious to the most casual visitor exemplified by the Indian-owned corner shops, newspaper agents, airport crew, rich businessmen, famous doctors, scientists and the ever present curry restaurants. The more famous groups among Indians are of course the Gujarati shopkeepers and Punjabi restaurant owners. But Indian Muslims have also been part of the British environment. Today they form a part of the wider group of Muslims from South Asia and beyond. In 2005 the estimated Indian Muslim population is 154, 00023, while in the British census of 2001 it was 131,098.[5]



Shahjahan mosque
Indian Muslims in Britain since 1947
A small number of Indian Muslim from all parts of British India was present who split into Indians and Pakistanis at the time of South Asia’s independence in 1947. Leaving aside parts of India that became Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is documented that Muslims from Surat and Bharuch started to arrive from the 1930s, settling in the towns of Dewsbury and Batley in Yorkshire and parts of Lancashire. There are large numbers of Gujarati Muslims in Blackburn, Bolton, Preston and in the London Boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney. Gujaratis have settled in such towns and cities as Leicester and Gloucester, as documented by a BBC report, http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/untold_stories/asian/gujurati_commu...
Gujarati Muslims have established madarsas in Britain for their own group as well as for other Muslims as reported by BBC’s Dominic Casciani about a madarsa in Preston.[6] In the past, members of the Khalifa community held a low position in the social hierarchy, a status closely bound up with two of their hereditary occupations, barber and musician. While they were in stigmatized occupations in India, in Britain they are a well-established and relatively successful community. While the connection with hairdressing is acknowledged and actively pursued, music making is an area of contestation, with competing claims that “music is in our blood”, and that music is not fully endorsed by Islam. [7] Besides the Gujaratis, there are other ethnic groups who constitute the larger category called Indian Muslims in Britain. Kokni or Konkani Muslims from coastal Maharashtra region have also settled in many parts of Britain, especially London. A small but articulate number of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar Muslims represented by Aligarh Alumni Association are spread all over the country. India’s Operation Polo against Hyderabad in September 1948 drove hundreds of Deccani Muslims into Britain in that year. Since then Hyderabadis have grown into a community several thousand strong, mostly concentrated in London. [8]
Economically, most Indian Muslims fall into three categories: skilled and semi-skilled laborers, shop owners, and professionals or civil servants. A study by Mark S. Brown reveals that Indian Muslims are economically and educationally more advanced than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain. [9] A handful have become millionaires exemplified by the cases of Bihar-born Perween Warsi, known as “Samosa Queen,” [10] and Kolkata-born Nadeem Ahmad founder and managing director of Global Tea & Commodities Ltd, GTC. [11]
British Media and Academia on Indian Muslims
British media increasingly pays attention to news about India as it emerges as a world economic power. The international events of last two decades saw an enormous interest about Islam and Muslims all over Britain. Most of it is for wrong reasons, and results in negative stereotypes about Muslims. Some coverage for anti-Muslim violence in India has been covered, but not to the level it deserves. The British academia has also a fair amount of interest in India, given the colonial connection, the rich archives and libraries in London and elsewhere in the U.K. However, contemporary Indian Muslims have not been studied to any degree by British academics compared to the study of Islam and Muslims in the Middle East. Most studies of India have been in the field of humanities, leaving less room for social scientists. Those studying Islam also tend to focus on the Middle East, much to the exclusion of South Asia as well as Muslims in Britain, [12] leaving the field to a handful of anthropologists. However, the Oxford Islamic Center headed by Irfan Nizami of Aligarh has started a project to research Muslims in Britain. [13]
Political Activism
Most Indian Muslims have remained apolitical. Three generations of Indian Muslims in the United Kingdom have yet to produce a significant representation in the parliament of the world’s oldest democracy. Adam Hafezjee Patel (b. 1940), a businessman was made a life peer as Baron Patel of Blackburn. It entitles him to a seat in the House of Lord, the upper chamber of the British parliament. Another Indian Muslim, Dr. Khalid Hameed, born in Lucknow is currently the Chairman of Alpha Hospital Group, as well as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the London International Hospital. The Queen appointed him as the first Asian High Sheriff of Greater London for the year 2006-2007. The House of Lords’ Appointment Commission February 2007 made him a life peer allowing him to sit as crossbencher in the upper house of parliament.
Nothing remarkable is known of Muslims either as candidates or voters in the British parliamentary elections since several decades. At the level of borough, two Indian Muslims were elected mayors. The first was Muhammad Khan (d. 1994) was elected mayor of borough of Waltham Forest in 1986 followed by Shaikh Shuja who was elected mayor of Hackney in 1990.
The oldest community organization is the Indian Muslim Federation,UK (IMF) established in 1969 in the wake of Ahmadabad pogrom. It acquired its own premises in August 1982. Its website [http://www.indianmuslim.org.uk/default.htm ] shows some of its resources and activities.



Dr. Omar Khalidi speaking to a gathering in IMF hall
V.A. Sayyid Muhammad, the then High Commissioner of India in London inaugurated the IMF’s Indian Muslim Hall on 23 February 1983. [14] Its aims are like that of any other community organization: “to promote educational, social, economic, cultural, political, and religious activities of Indian Muslims.” [15] To this end, the IMF has organized meetings with visiting Indian Muslims public figures, collected relief funds for the riots victims and mobilized public opinion through protest marches to end anti-Muslim violence in India. Like most Muslims organizations, IMF is also more active during epoch making events such as the 1969 pogrom in Ahmadabad, during the demolition of Babri mosque in 1992, in 2002 during Gujarat pogrom and subsequent riots. The IMF is involved in advice and counseling for Indian Muslims in UK for a variety of local issues such as those pertaining to women, youth and the elderly as well. Its premises provide space for a day care center and rentable rooms for functions to generate income for the organization. To mark the 60th anniversary of Indian independence, the IMF organized an international Indian Muslim conference in London in 2007, part of which was held at the House of Commons. The moving spirit behind the work is a team under the leadership of Dr Shamsuddin Agha. Born in 1936, and living in London since 1964, Dr Agha has tirelessly worked against the familiar odds: indifference of the community, lack of help from younger generation or financial help from wealthier community members. [16]
Another organization is the Council of Indian Muslims (UK) established in London in the wake of 2002 Gujarat pogrom. Its objectives as stated on the website [ http://www.coimuk.org/content/about-cim ] are to “organize and bring onto one platform the NRI Muslims in the UK;” and to “promote the interests of Muslim community in India which has been subjected to most severe violence and continuous discrimination since independence.” To this end, CIM, “publishes and distributes newsletters, informative literature on violation of their human rights”; and maintains contacts with Indian and British governments for the welfare of the community. [17]
A 2009 report by an official organization Communities and Local Government, entitled The Indian Muslim Community in England, concludes:
“The Indian Muslim community is a significant community in terms of its size, which is estimated to be around 150,000 in England. However, it is perceived by respondents in this research as remaining largely invisible in public policy and the political arena because of its relatively small size in comparison with the broader Indian and South Asian Muslim communities. Respondents from the community stress its historic tradition
of co-existence with other communities through its experience as a minority in its country of origin. However, at a broad level, specific issues and needs get lost in the public policy focus and engagement with Pakistani and other Indian communities.
The community has also remained marginalized from mainstream politics both in India and in Britain, hence there is less of a culture of civic participation and engagement than some of the other established ethnic minority communities. This is an issue that is readily acknowledged within the community and there is currently considerable debate and encouragement for the community to be more politically engaged.” [18]
The 2002 Pogrom in Gujarat and Public Mobilization in Britain
The state-sponsored pogrom of 2002 in Gujarat deeply affected British Indian Muslims. In that pogrom at least three British Muslims of Gujarati descent visiting Gujarat were murdered by the rampaging mobs. As a Gujarat cop infamously said to fleeing Muslims, “We have no orders to save you.” [19] The relatives of the murdered brothers Shakil Dawood and Saeed Dawood began a campaign to bring justice to the perpetrators. [20] But evidently, the Gujarat government under Narendra Modi successfully suppressed evidence to allow justice to be brought to the killers. [21] A group called Awaaz, established after the Gujarat pogrom by a group of South Asian of all faiths and no faith became active in highlighting state-complicity in anti-Muslim violence. It tried to block the pogrom perpetrator Narendra Modi from entering U.K. in August 2003. Other Muslim organization joined the efforts to prevent Modi from arriving in UK, but they failed. [22] Three self-styled Muslim leaders, led by Zafar Sareshwala, with business interests in Gujarat, instead of supporting efforts to bring him to a court of law, instead embraced the hated anti-Muslim chief minister of Gujarat.[23] However, two years later, when the United States revoked Modi’s visa 18 March 2005 on grounds of his complicity in large scale human rights violations, Britain followed suit.[24] Since that year, Muslim organizations such as Council of Indian Muslims have repeatedly campaigned to prevent the entry of Modi into UK.[25] Some coverage in the British press has also highlighted the pogrom and the subsequent sufferings of Indian Muslims. But the combined efforts of both secular/liberal and Muslim organizations has not yet produced results that would terminate the politics of hate. Until, Indian Muslim organizations and others who believe in a secular and democratic South Asia mobilize public opinion to a high degree, Hindu supremacists in India will remain immune from prosecution, and would not be hurt too much by an occasional official pronouncement disapproving of their acts.
Conclusions
Clearly, the Indian Muslims in Britain are obscured in public view by the larger groups of Hindus and Sikhs on the one hand and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis on the other. While the aforementioned South Asian groups have rightfully asserted their role within Britain and in their respective countries, Indian Muslims have not. It is partly because many were marginalized at “home”, and partly due to the replication of “home” identities based on regional culture and sectarian affiliation. Thus Hyderabadis rarely surface outside their world centered on the Nizam’s capital. Most of their collective energies have not gone beyond mushairas, Eid parties, sports and entertainment events. Similarly the Aligarh Muslim University alumni remain focused on issues specific to their alma mater. The Konkanis are naturally tied to the issues of coastal Maharashtra. The Gujarati Muslims remain divided by jamaats or clans based on affiliation to a particular place in Gujarat. None of the groups have as yet succeeded in overcoming primordial ties to unite for collective action based on a shared sense of being an Indian Muslim. Once that sense catches the imagination, it can be hoped that the various Muslim communities can channelize collective energy for unified action for the welfare of Muslims in India.
Notes:
1. As cited in Islamic Review (March 1933), p. 62, available on http://www.wokingmuslim.org/pers/aabaig.htm
And in the Indenture of the Woking Mosque Trust dated 12 April 1915, as recorded on page 97 of Muslim P. Salamat’s book A Miracle At Woking: A History of the Shahjahan Mosque, (Chichester, West Surrey, England, UK: Phillimore, 2008.
2. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, “Sir Abbas Ali Baig,” Islamic Review (March 1933): 62-63, available on http://www.wokingmuslim.org/pers/aabaig.htm
3. Abdul Latif Tibawi, “History of London Central Mosque and Islamic Cultural Center, 1910-1980,” Welt des Islams 21 (1981):93-208.
4. Islamic Review (August 1937),inside front cover, http://www.wokingmuslim.org/photos/is-rev-aug372.htm
5. The Indian Muslim Community in England, www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1203727.pdf Published in April 2009 and accessed on July 20 2010.
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3355803.stmominic Casciani, “Inside Britain’s Islamic Colleges,” BBC News 15 January 2004, posted on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3355803.stm
7. John Baily, “Music is in Our Blood: Gujarati Muslim Musicians in the U.K.,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32, 2 (March 2006): 257-270.
8. Karen Leonard, Locating Home: India’s Hyderabadis Abroad, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2007)
9. Mark S. Brown, “Religion and Economic Activity in the South Asian Population,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23, 6 (November 2000): 1035-1062.
10. Ishara Bhasi, “Perween Warsi: From Frying Pan to Higher,” India Today (4 July 2005): 40-41.
11. “Brewing Success,” India Today (4 July 2005): 44.
12. Atuallah Siddiqi, 2007, Islam at Universities in England, available on http://www.mihe.org.uk/mihe/detail.php?page=179&s=15
13. http://www.oxcis.ac.uk/seminars.html
14. Indian Muslim Federation 25 Years of Cooperation and Achievements Silver Jubilee, 1969-1995, (London: IMF, 1995), p. 5.
15. Indian Muslim Federation 25 Years of Cooperation and Achievements Silver Jubilee, 1969-1995, (London: IMF, 1995), p. 6.
16. Conversations with Dr Shamsuddin Agha, London 11 July 2010.
17. For instance see, The Victim of Hindutva Fascism in Gujarat: A Tribute to Ahsan Jafri, ed. M. Munaf Zeena, (London: CIM, 2003).
18. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/1203727.pdf Published in April 2009 and accessed on July 20 2010.
19. Human Rights Watch, New York 2002 Report, “We have No Orders to Save You,” http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/india/
20. The Dawood Family Justice Campaign, http://www.dawoodcampaign.org/background/index.html
21. It is not clear where the campaign has gone, as some of the links in the Dawood Family Justice Campaign have gone dead when accessed on July 24 2010.
22. M. Ghazali Khan, “Modi Goes to London,” The Milli Gazette 23 August 2003, posted on http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2003/20030823.htm
23. Omar Khalidi, “Kowtowing to the Killers,” Two Circles.net 3 October 2008, posted on http://www.twocircles.net/2008oct03/kowtowing_killers_muslims_murderer_m...
24. Omar Khalidi, “Not Relevant Indians? Outlook India 10 November 2009 http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262767
25. Letter of M. Munaf Zeena to the British Home Secretary in March 2009 posted on http://www.coimuk.org/content/“refuse-visa-modi”-british-indian-muslims-demand

Monday, September 6, 2010

The international Mosque imbroglio - By Ghulam Muhammed

Monday, September 06, 2010

The international Mosque imbroglio

Much that US writers would prefer to localize the issue of Mosque at Ground Zero, or anywhere else on mainland US, there is a wider perspective that cannot be ignored if the drift of events have to be forewarned and foretold.

As I see it, the Mosque problem starts with Al Aqsa Mosque that is believed to be built over the Jewish Temple, destroyed by Romans. The Wall is still there for all the world Jewry to remind that there was once a grand Temple there. The Jews are reasonably aspiring to rebuild the old temple, preferably at the same site. The problem is that the site is now occupied for over a 1000 years by a Mosque that is the third most sacred Mosque for 1.5 billion Muslims of the world, after that of Mecca and Medina Harams(Mosque). The Aqsa Mosque was Muslim's first Qibla, the direction to which they faced while praying five times a day. Even though in 1967, Jordan lost control of the site, the city of Jerusalem; the holy sites of the 3 Abrahamanical religions are internationally recognized as disputed land. Short of getting outright and full effective control of the Al Aqsa Mosque, Israelis have to do with all kinds of ruse to make life difficult for Muslims of the city so that they should hopefully, eventually, leave the place and let Jews built its old Temple. That just is not possible in these times and age. Israel has big power, but it cannot withstand the backlash if any damaged to Al Aqsa Mosque is even rumored. Enter conspiracies. Jewish conspirators had spotted that India too has a similar case of a Mosque having been built supposedly on a site widely believed to be the site of the birth of Hindu avatar/God Ram. A doctoral thesis from US was sent over to L. K. Advani, a onetime Home Minister of a coalition government led by the extremist Hindutva politic0-religious group, who took the doctoral strategies to heart and converted 'aggression over the Mosque to translate into political power'. L. K. Advani, in one of his interviews with The Economic Times, has publicly acknowledged receiving the blue-print and adopted it to raise a grand nation-wide campaign to demolish the Babri Masjid. A big conspiracy between the two major political parties, allowed over a lakh of rabble-rouser to demolish the 500 year old structure, though in fact through implosions inside the old Mosque that caved in just like the two World Trade Center Buildings, all in heap and dust. The world media made it out that it was the sole work of demolition by an enraged mob, the Kar Sevaks. The civil suit over the ownership of the 500 year site is in the court for last decade and over, and a ruling is expected this month, September 16, 2010, probably. Big trouble is expected. But the political consideration in India may preclude major disaster, as that will deeply damage the ruling Congress Party's prospects in the coming general elections.

Zoom away from India and focus on Ground Zero. Nobody knows whose idea it was to build an 'Islamic Center' or Mosque near Ground Zero. An educated guess is that it has something to do with Democratic Party's effort to reclaim US goodwill with Muslim World, severely eroded during Bush/Cheney period. Imam Rauf is in full cooperation with US State Department and had made trips abroad pumping for US overtures to Muslim World. Naturally, all this is anathema to Republicans in general and American Jewish Neo-Cons in particular. They have wasted no time in making a big scandal about the Mosque project with a view to reposition Republicans once again in mainstream public gaze. The political fight between Democrats and Republicans has made Muslims a reluctant scapegoat and they have to assert their rights as American citizens to avail of the full freedom of religion.

It is worth noting, that in all the 3 centers of conflicts, Al Aqsa, Babri and Ground Zero, the legal land rights are all with the Muslims.

The media and mass agitation is organized and mobilized, especially by Jewish proxies, to scare Muslims in giving up their legitimate rights.

Both in India and in Jerusalem, Muslims have not given in to the arm-twisting. One hopes that American Muslims too would stand up for their constitutional rights and not be cowed down by the organized mob actions unleashed by their detractors.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Writings of Ben Gurion on Pakistan

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Shuja R. Khan <khanshuja163@hotmail.com> wrote:


Writings of Ben Gurion on Pakistan

It's funny what sort of information can be gleaned off a white nationalist. But here's some, I'd like to see your comments about - anything, even regarding whether you think it's genuine or not.

“The world Zionist movement should not be neglectful of the dangers of Pakistan to it. And Pakistan now should be its first target, for this ideological State is a threat to our existence. And Pakistan, the whole of it, hates the Jews and loves the Arabs. “This lover of the Arabs is more dangerous to us than the Arabs themselves. For that matter, it is most essential for the world Zionism that it should now take immediate steps against Pakistan. “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan. “It is essential that we exploit this base and strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans.”

-David Ben Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister.His words, as printed in the Jewish Chronicle,9 August 


 

You Ain’t Seen This Before - By Thomas L. Friedman - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01friedman.html

New York Times

Op-Ed Columnist

You Ain’t Seen This Before

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 31, 2010
President Obama is embarking on something I’ve never seen before — taking on two Missions Impossible at the same time. That is, a simultaneous effort to heal the two most bitter divides in the Middle East: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Shiite-Sunni conflict centered in Iraq. Give him his due. The guy’s got audacity. I’ll provide the hope. But kids, don’t try this at home.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Yet, if by some miracles the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that open in Washington on Thursday do eventually produce a two-state solution, and Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis do succeed in writing their own social contract on how to live together, one might be able to imagine a Middle East that breaks free from the debilitating grip of endless Arab-Israeli wars and autocratic Arab regimes.


President Obama deserves credit for helping to nurture these opportunities. But he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and the newly elected leaders of Iraq need to now raise their games to a whole new level to seize this moment — or their opponents will.

Precisely because so much is at stake, the forces of intolerance, extreme nationalism and religious obscurantism all over the Middle East will be going all out to make sure that both the Israeli and Iraqi peace processes fail.

The opponents want to destroy the idea of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, so Israel will be stuck with an apartheid-like, democracy-sapping, permanent occupation of the West Bank. And they want to destroy the idea of a one-state solution for Iraqis and keep Iraq fractured, so it never coheres into a multisectarian democracy that could be an example for other states in the region.
I hope that one of my personal rules about the Middle East is proved wrong — that in this region extremists go all the way and moderates tend to just go away.

Mr. Obama was right to keep to his troop-withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Iraqi politicians need to stand on their own. But this is tricky. The president will not be remembered for when we leave Iraq but for what happens after we leave. That is largely in Iraqi hands, but it is still very much in our interest. So we need to retain sufficient diplomatic, intelligence, Special Forces and Army training units there to promote a decent outcome.

Because all the extremists are now doubling down. Last week, insurgents aligned with Al Qaeda boasted of killing 56 innocent Iraqis. On Tuesday, Palestinian gunmen murdered four West Bank Israeli settlers, including a pregnant woman; Hamas proudly claimed credit. In Israel, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who heads the largest ultra-Orthodox party, Shas, used his Shabbat sermon to declare that he hoped the Palestinian president and his people would die. “All these evil people should perish from this world ... God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians,” Yosef said.

Trust me, this is just the throat-clearing and gun-cleaning. Wait until we have a deal. Even if Israel agrees to swap land with the Palestinians so that 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank can stay put, it will mean that 60,000 will still have to be removed. It took Israel 55,000 soldiers to remove 8,100 Jewish settlers from Gaza, which was never part of the Land of Israel. Imagine when today’s Israeli Army, where the officer corps is increasingly drawn from religious Zionists who support the settler movement, is called on to remove settlers from the West Bank.
None of this is a reason not to proceed. It is a reason to succeed. There is so much to hate about the Iraq war. The costs will never match the hoped-for outcome, but that outcome remains hugely important: the effort to build a decent, consensual government in Iraq is the most important democracy project in the world today. If Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites can actually write a social contract for the first time in modern Arab history, it means that viable democracy is not only possible in Iraq, but everywhere in the region.

“Iraq is the Germany of the Middle East,” says Michael Young, opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star and author of a very original book about Lebanon, “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square.” “It is at the heart of the region — affecting all around it — and the country’s multi-ethnic, multisectarian population represents all the communities of the region. Right now, what is going on in Iraq represents all the worst trends in the region, but if you can make it work, it could represent the best.”
The late Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin used to say he would pursue peace with the Palestinians as if there were no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process. That dual approach is one that Iraqi, Arab, Palestinian and Israeli moderates are all going to have to adopt. Mao said a revolution is not a dinner party, and neither is bringing revolutionary change to the Middle East. I hope the forces of moderation are up to it. The bad guys will be offering no timeouts. They know the stakes, and they will be going all the way.

Monday, August 30, 2010

In Israel, Settling for Less - By Gadi Taub - The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30taub.html?pagewanted=all


In Israel, Settling for Less

WILL Israel remain a Zionist state? If so, what kind? These are the important questions in Israeli politics today, and will be looming over the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority scheduled to begin Thursday in Washington.


The secular Zionist dream was fundamentally democratic. Its proponents, from Theodor Herzl to David Ben-Gurion, sought to apply the universal right of self-determination to the Jews, to set them free individually and collectively as a nation within a democratic state. (In fact, the Zionist movement had a functioning democratic parliament even before it had a state.)

This dream is now seriously threatened by the religious settlers’ movement, Orthodox Jews whose theological version of Zionism is radically different. Although these religious settlers are relatively few — around 130,000 of the total half-a-million settlers — their actions could spell the end of the Israel we have known.

The roots of the problem have been there from the birth of modern Zionism. The relations between Herzl’s movement and Jewish Orthodoxy were uneasy from the start. After all, the Zionist movement sought to achieve by human means what Jews for two millenniums considered to be God’s work alone: the gathering of the diaspora in the land of Israel. Most rabbis therefore shunned Herzl, but not all. Some joined the movement, even formed a party within it, based on a separation of religion and politics. For them, secular Zionism was primarily a solution to the earthly predicament of the Jews; it was not so theologically laden.

But over the following decades another form of religious Zionism came to precedence, inspired by the quasi-mystical writings of Abraham Isaac Kook, who was the chief rabbi of Palestine under the British Mandate in the 1920s and ’30s. Kook saw secular Zionists as the unwitting agents of God’s providence, advancing redemption by returning Jews to their homeland.

His son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, later focused his father’s theological ideas around a single commandment: to settle all the land promised to the ancient Hebrews in the Bible. His disciples, energized by a burning messianic fervor, took Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967 as confirmation of this theology and set out to fulfill its commandment. Religious enthusiasm made the movement subversive in a deep sense — adherents believed they had a divine obligation to build settlements and considered the authority of Israel’s democratic government conditional on its acceptance of what they declared to be God’s politics.

Although religious settlers often describe themselves as heirs of the early Zionist pioneers, they are anything but. Herzl’s vision was about liberating people, while theirs is about achieving a mystical reunion between the people of Israel and the land of Israel. Herzl’s view stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment and the tradition of democratic national liberation movements, dating back to the American and French Revolutions; religious settlers are steeped in blood-and-soil nationalism. Herzl never doubted that Israeli Arabs should have full and equal rights. For religious settlers, Arabs are an alien element in the organic unity of Jews and their land.
The consequences of these differences are huge. If the settlers achieve their manifest goal — making Israel’s hold on the territories permanent — it will mean the de facto annexation of a huge Arab population and will force a decision about their status. In Israel proper, the Arab minority represents about a fifth of its 7.2 million citizens, and they have full legal equality. But between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, there are roughly equal numbers of Arabs and Jews today.
Even if Israel annexed only the West Bank, it would more than double its Arab population. With birthrates in the territories far exceeding those of Arabs and Jews within Israel, Jews would soon enough be a minority. This would void the very idea of a Jewish democratic state.

Israel would have to choose between remaining democratic but not Jewish, or remaining Jewish by becoming non-democratic. Israel’s enemies have long maintained that Zionism is racism and that Israel is an apartheid state. If the settlers succeed, they will turn this lie into truth.

In fact, the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, once the great patron of the settlers, was one of the first politicians on the right to accept that the settlers’ dream is hopeless. That is why he led Israel out of Gaza in 2005. But not all have followed him. The secular Israeli right has abandoned the idea of annexation but still favors settlement on short-term (and short-sighted) security grounds.
Preserving military rule over the territories, they believe, is necessary to keep terrorism in check, and the settlements demonstrate Israel’s resolve. Although the occupation and the suspension of Palestinian rights are officially temporary, the right wing aspires to keep Arabs indefinitely in quasi-colonial status. Given the Palestinians’ refusal to sign a peace deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s predecessors, many Israelis who oppose the settlements and occupation in principle have thrown up their hands and accepted this situation, too.

But the status quo cannot last — and Israelis and their supporters need to confront this fact. The most pressing problem with the settlements is not that they are obstacles to a final peace accord, which is how settlement critics have often framed the issue. The danger is that they will doom Zionism itself.

If the road to partition is blocked, Israel will be forced to choose between two terrible options: Jewish-dominated apartheid or non-Jewish democracy. If Israel opts for apartheid, as the settlers wish, Israel will betray the beliefs it was founded on, become a pariah state and provoke the Arab population to an understandable rebellion. If a non-Jewish democracy is formally established, it is sure to be dysfunctional. Fatah and Hamas haven’t been able to reconcile their differences peacefully and rule the territories — throwing a large Jewish population into the mix is surely not going to produce a healthy liberal democracy. Think Lebanon, not Switzerland.

In truth, both options — and indeed all “one-state solutions” — lead to the same end: civil war. That is why the settlement problem should be at the top of everyone’s agenda, beginning with Israel’s. The religious settlement movement is not just secular Zionism’s ideological adversary, it is a danger to its very existence. Terrorism is a hazard, but it cannot destroy Herzl’s Zionist vision. 

More settlements and continued occupation can.



Gadi Taub, an assistant professor of communications and public policy at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is the author of “The Settlers.”