Two views on Israelis v/s Palestinians
For
the Muslim ummah at large as well as liberals around the world, Israel
is the aggressor in perpetuity as long as it exits in Palestine by
force. Hamas is fighting a war of liberation and for the first time it
has virtually tied up Israel in knots. Yesterday Israel was threatening
every Muslim country in the Middle East. Today it is virtually on the
ropes. Even with the Iron Domes protecting Israel cities from Hamas
rockets, Hamas has virtually invaded Israel. No other Muslim country has
the guts to take out or take on this bully head on. It is their shame that is
preventing them from lauding and helping Hamas. There is more evident
gulf between the people and rulers of the Middle East than it was as
ever before. Hamas has brought Israel to its knees and it is now amply
proved that Israel can only be managed through use of power. Let nobody
for reasons of their own and their vested interest, spoil the real chance to force Israel to free
the people of Palestine.
One can witness Israel panelists on Israeli
online i24news overwhelmingly conceding defeat and advising their rulers
to free Gaza from the seize or Israel itself will remain in siege for
ever.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
Hamas gets a rap in the Arab world for provoking Israel
By Siraj Wahab in Jeddah
As Palestinian casualties rise following Israel's ground invasion of
Gaza, there has been significant criticism of Hamas in the mostly Sunni
Arab world.
Hamas, which has been ruling Gaza since 2005, is seen as an Iranian
proxy in a region where every move of Shiite Tehran is eyed with
suspicion and derision. Yasser Arafat's Fatah, currently headed by
President Mahmoud Abbas, is seen as the real and legitimate
representatives of the Palestinians.
Hamas is hardcore Sunni but since it is not supported by the Arab
countries, Iran has cultivated it to further its political goals in the
Sunni-dominated region.
Many credible analysts have gone to the extent of saying that the
current conflict may have been engineered by Iran to take the pressure
off Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Iran's major proxy, Hezbollah, fought off a major Israeli attack in the
past and it then went on a killing spree on behalf of Assad against the
Sunnis of Syria.
While Israel continues to invite the ire of all Arabs, it is Iran that is seen as the real, long-term threat.
Eyad Abu Shakra, managing editor of the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat,
says the Iranian leadership discovered some time ago that there is a
significant commonality of interest between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
"The Iran-Contra scandal was an early indication of Tehran’s pragmatism,
based on the idea that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Today, the
intersection of Israeli and Iranian interests manifests itself in the
war on 'terrorists,' in Tel Aviv’s discourse, and against 'takfirists'
(extremist Sunnis) in the parlance of Iran," said Abu Shakra in his
recent piece.
"Regionally Israel requires, if only on a temporary basis, that Iran use
its affiliates in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq for the protection of
Israel’s borders. In return, Iran is seeking full control of the Arab
Mashreq, from the Gulf to the Mediterranean."
According to Abu Shakra, Israel does not seem to be opposed to Iran’s
aspirations and actions because it benefits if Tehran succeeds in
protecting its borders, and benefits even more if Tehran’s failure
intensifies the intra-Islamic civil war.
Taking a dig at Hamas, high-profile Saudi journalist Salman Al-Dossary said the current conflict is all too familiar.
"Hamas provokes Israel; the latter responds to the blow with a thousand
of its own. Israel doesn’t find those it is searching for, so it takes
out its anger on the innocent Palestinian people ... But it’s only a few
more days and the Israeli war will end. Hamas leaders will reappear
after hiding underground throughout the war, to return to their former
locations once the billions of dollars’ worth of humanitarian aid has
been received," he wrote in a major Saudi publication.
"Israeli jets will safely return to their bases, and Hamas will stop
firing missiles too. The biggest loser is the Palestinian people," wrote
Al-Dossary. "It was the same story with Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah
in 2006. Half of Lebanon was destroyed, and then eventually Hezbollah
deployed its weapons for the killing of innocent Syrians."
Popular Saudi columnist Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, says Hamas does not pay
much attention to the number of dead Palestinians. "Hamas is not gaining
anything by locking horns with Israel," he wrote in his column in the
Jeddah-based Arab News.
Asking pointed questions, Al-Mulhim said: "Does Hamas receive orders
from abroad? Some of Hamas missiles are either from Iran or used Iranian
technologies. So, the question is, can Hamas use these missiles or its
technologies without a green light from Iran and is the attack from Gaza
planned by the Iranians to take some of the pressure off Bashar Assad?"
According to him, Hamas had been in isolation from the day it took control of Gaza because of its behavior.
"So, maybe Hamas wanted to emerge from this isolation and catch the
world’s attention... Hamas leaders are jet setters. They travel high
class, stay at the best hotels and eat the best food but their people
are not paid their salaries on time," said Al-Mulhim, articulating the
widespread indignation at Hamas for sacrificing innocent Palestinian
blood.
@sirajwahab
sirajwahab@arabnews.com
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
|
|
|
Ram
Nonetheless, your closing two paragraphs drive home your point. Although the comparison is not a good one, your article reminds me of the American Civil War, the gross loss of lives, but with an opposite ending–no partition. We’ve had our riots since then, especially during the 1960s, but they’ve been of quite another nature and certainly without the death tolls of your region’s uprisings. On a slightly different note, how does Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis measure up to your take on India’s partition?
Excellent article, certainly in United India, one third Muslims would have had a bigger say in all matters. India’s poverty levels would not have been that pathetic. I think the biggest losers after the partition are the Muslims of India who have to after 65 yrs still have to prove their loyalty to Hindu India.
Sorry but this is pure fantasy. Muslims are incapable of living with their fellow Muslims let alone those ghastly infidels such as the Sikhs, Hindu. Christians etc. The vicious sectarian wars that have been a characteristic of Islamic societies for several centuries (on and off I do accept) are proof of an insurmountable barrier to the idea of a “greater India”. Of course it is not only the Muslims who would have been the downfall of a unified state incorporating Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. All of the aforementioned nations have shown a preference for demagoguery over statesmanship and genuine leadership.
In recent times Greece, France and Russia have all shown in their various ways how hard it is to keep unity and peace in a democratic nation which allows freedom of speech. If people like Putin, Le Pen, Berlusconi can prosper in “advanced” western nations, then what chance would Greater India have ever had of keeping the fissiparous forces from taking control.
Do you really believe that demagogues would not have stoked up the fires of religious intolerance to further their own political ends? Even today, Pakistan is in danger of becoming a failed state. Had Pakistan and Bangladesh been incorporated into a greater India, the result would have been a civil war 1000 times more bloody and intractable than the war in Northern Ireland.
The decision of Mountbatten and the British Government may have been based on the wrong reasons, military weakness, lack of political will etc but it avoided the long and bloody struggle that would have inevitably ensued.
Islam is to the body politic of any nation like a poison to a person’s body. The stronger the Islamic sentiment the weaker the state. Just as the stronger the poison in a body the weaker that body becomes.
“Even assuming that Hindu-Muslim riots would have been a regular occurrence in an undivided India, as Mr Hamdani does, it would still take many centuries of such violence to approach the total numbers killed and maimed at partition.” If you really believe that then look at what is going on in the middle east at the moment and ask yourself if you really believe that Pakistani Moslems would peacefully coexist with their fellow Indians.
But let me comment on one of the responses.
I’ve noticed that we – most of us – often respond to conflict that we don’t understand by assuming that the people involved in those conflicts are incapable of cooperation, self-rule, whatever. There is usually a “they” to pin this incapacity on.
I tend to think instead that ALL human communities divided by ethnic or religious identity have difficulty living side by side, and that virtually every such community generates demagogic leaders who will inflame the fears of their constituents. This has been true in the US, the UK, and countless other countries.
Fortunately people in some countries have managed to moderate such difficulties and live peacefully together, even if uneasily. But unfortunately, some individuals in these fortunate countries blithely pronounce judgements on the capabilities and incapabilities of people in other countries from afar, with no more evidence than is selected for them by the news. This seems to serve no purpose so much as to further inflame the passions. Is that just inconsiderate?
Those of us living in more fortunate countries, where ethnic and religious tensions are moderated to some degree, should think twice. Instead of congratulating ourselves, we might reflect that making inconsiderate pronouncements on the capabilities of people in other countries can only earn us the enmity of those people.
A reader has sent in the following comment directly to me:
“Partition happened because the Hindu and Muslim majority parties failed to find a constitutional solution within the framework of a single country. A single sub-continental country had never existed before the British Raj which further complicated the problem already posed by two large religious communities/identities that had failed to find a modus vivendi especially since Aurangzeb’s divisive and disastrous adventures.
But Partition made matters worse by further deepening the Hindu-Muslim divide which in turn opened the door wider for fanatics on both sides. And it also artificially altered the demography and culture of its two most contentious regions – Punjab and Bengal. Partition also diverted staggering resources away from development into defence pursuits which also worsened the psyche on both sides.
A more important question is what could have prevented Partition in the first place. Give and take for sure. Jinnah was more interested in that until he was rebuffed by Nehru et al for seeking safeguards against the feared tyranny of the majority community in an undiluted parliamentary system.
There was no simple solution to a complicated problem but Partition was hardly the best.”
About 10 million were killed in the First World War, over 40 million in the Second World War, anywhere from half a million to a million were slaughtered over 100 days in the Rwandan ethnic genocide and over 5 million in Congo’s tribal conflicts between 1998 and 2008 (it isn’t over yet). The Bangladesh war was one of self-determination with no religious underpinning. Tony may not know, but most western and many Indian historians and writers now concede that, despite the religious façade, the Pakistan movement was one of self-determination too. Mr Jinnah was not the villain he is often portrayed to be, rather he was more flexible than some leaders of the Indian National Congress, including Mr Nehru. What led Jinnah, once called the “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”, to argue for Pakistan is an interesting story. Even so, most believe that he was ready for a compromise to the very end, including his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan, which would have preserved the unity of India for the foreseeable future at least. Just for those who are obsessed with the Suuni-Shia schism, the Iraqi Sunni Kurds are now allied with the Iraqi Arab Shias in opposing the Arab Sunni ISIS (or ISIL) now invading from the northwest. What superficially appears to be a sectarian divide in Iraq is, in fact, regional and tribal, with the Sunni Kurds in the north, Sunni Arabs in the center and the Shia Arabs in the south.
In the written as well as unwritten history, India has been under one rule for only 650 years. Mughals and the British shared 600 of those 650 years between them and the rest under Ashoka, who became a Budhist. Rest of the period India was split into hundreds, if not thousands of rajwaras, holdings etc. Hind and Sind always remained independent entities, both meeting at Sirhind or a SARHAD between the two. Partition of subcontinent is not something new, it was always there in history.
Now something about the subcontinent or you may say the British India.
All the leading Muslim Religious parties opposed the creation of Pakistan some calling Quaid e Azam, KAFIR-e-AZAM.
Quaid-e-Azam himself was a staunch Indian nationalist, until at least January 1915, when Gandhi singled him out as a Mohammedan. He was labelled as a symbol of the Hindu Muslim unity by Moti Lal Nehru, Jinnah Hall in Bombay, a symbol of that recognition. He had a Parsi women as his wife and he had an English living style, no beard, no Maulana tagged with his name.
Quaid-e-Azam did not want partition of the British India until May 1946.
He accepted the Cabinet mission proposals, division of the British India into three autonomous regions within India: (1) northwest, (2) East and (3) the rest of India. Congress rejected the proposals. It is the Congress, the Hindu mindset, which is responsible for the partition of British India.
After the June 2, 1947 partition announcement by Mountbatten, Congress once again forced the division of Punjab and Bengal on religious basis, thus leading to massacres and migration of populations unmatched in the history of mankind.
I have seen Pakistan in making and had crossed over to Pakistan in 1947, with my shoes littered with the blood of my dear ones.
So my dear Azmi, you may like it or not, the Hindu mindset is responsible for the partition of British India, the bloodshed and the migration of populations. They take counsel from Chanakya, who recommended ENMITY WITH THE NEIGHBOUR AND FRIENDSHIP WITH HIS NEIGHBOUR.
It is a possibility that Jinnah Saheb, simply wished to use the demand for a separate state for Muslims as a bargaining tool to win greater power for Muslims within India. Certainly, the idea of ‘Pakistan’ was not thought of until the late 1930s after Allama Iqbal’s address in Allahabad during the muslim league convention in 1930.
The united India would have its two major borders, entire western border and entire eastern border, lying in the areas where Muslims held an absolute majority. With Islam known to create supranational loyalties and identities among its followers, the domination of India’s two geopolitical borders by Muslims would have left it insecure. In fact, the control of these two regions would have afforded the Indian Muslims political weight over and above their numerical strength of about one-third in the united India. The over-representation of Muslims (from Punjab and the Frontier) in the British Indian Army would have also carried through. Such situation would have parallels in the politics of pre-1971 Pakistan, when the numerical majority of East Pakistanis was held hostage to the intransigent opposition to democracy of the Western wing.
Hindus of India would have had to either accept a non-democratic power-sharing system where Muslims enjoyed political power at par, if not above, other religious communities combined or a constant civil war-like situation.
If Pakistan, one-seventh in population and size, and one-tenth in economy as compared to India, could launch the Kargil War for political ends, one-third in strength, strategically-placed, Muslims in the united India would have even less hesitation in using force to settle domestic issues and, thus, undermine Indian democracy.
We should not discount and underestimate the abilities of Muslims to enter in religion-based political alliances with Afghanistan and beyond to further undermine Hindus, if needed. Abdalis and the Taliban have historically been readily available to conquer Delhi and provide an external counter-balance to Hindu majority in the subcontinent. A purer but smaller India, with troublesome areas separated, is comparatively more stable and secure. My thoughts are, again, “what if” rambling. My scenario might not have happened in the united India but why take a chance.
“Would the Subcontinent have fared better if Partition had not occurred?
That would have required a constitutional compromise, some form of a federal system with safeguards for religious minorities. Assuming that, my short answer would be yes, especially in light of all the disasters that followed Partition, starting with a humanitarian catastrophe.
Briefly, Kashmir would not have been the big issue it became; costly inter-state wars would not have occurred; an undivided Subcontinent would have been in a much better position to limit the impact of the Cold War as well as deal with aspiring regional powers like Communist China. The non-aligned movement would have carried more weight and cohesion, giving the Subcontinent a bigger voice on global issues.
Internally, the Subcontinent would have been able to focus more sharply and with more resources on meeting its social and economic challenges. Muslims in India would have fared better. Punjab and Bengal, which suffered the most from Partition, would have been more important politically and they would also done a lot better economically. Sharing the Himalayan waters would have been much easier to manage in an undivided situation than the big headache it has been since Partition.
At least for the first one or two decades, the Subcontinent would have had a better post-colonial start than it did as a result of Partition. What would have happened further down the road is more speculative. But a better start is good enough for me.”