Israel, Hamas and all that is middle east - geopolitics

 I wrote this essay in 2004 and never sent it out. I was too young and Gulf War 2 was raging with Iraqi invasion by the West. As I revisit it now, looks like Sharon's govt. was right and Netanyahu is wrong when it comes to strategy. Also look at the West's position now as opposed to then.  My friends ask me why the Arab and Islamic country govt. don't care about Palestine.  Here is my answer - When did they ever care?  

My article from 2004. 

Blood on whose hands ?

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and now Rantissi's killing by the Israeli government  has been widely condemned throughout the world as brutal, and senseless. While their killings were brutal, it is too simplistic to say it was senseless. In fact, this change of tactics by the Israeli government is a welcome departure from the previous indiscriminate bulldozing of houses filled with Palestinians and murdering Palestinian civilians in the name of “suspected” terrorists. It appears the Sharon Government has finally chosen to use the soft LoV (Locus of Values) option which in strategic parlance refers to the targeting masterminds of terrorist organizations instead of ordinary people themselves. This sort of tactics will reduce the death of innocent Palestinians as the target is clear and not fuzzy as before. One wishes the US-UK governments had chosen to go after Saddam Hussein in this fashion instead of waging wars on Afghanistan and Iraq that has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians.

It is extremely hypocritical of the British government, especially the likes of Blair to cry foul at the murder of Hamas leaders when they chose to deploy troops and falsify evidence to go after one man, Saddam Hussein, which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis and is still continuing to do so.  It is even more hypocritical of the British people to condemn Yassin’s killing irrespective of whether they are Muslim, Christian, or Jew when during the invasion of Iraq, Blair’s popularity ratings shot up and the British have not demanded the withdrawal of troops from Iraq like Spain did. Despite the mounting death toll of Iraqis and maiming of several others, the British instead choose to target the Israeli government. Whose hands have more blood – the Israelis or the British?

What is even more hypocritical is the condemnation by Arab governments that chose to lend its own soil to the US-UK coalition during the Iraq invasion. It may do well to remember that the Israelis didn’t choose to send their own troops to aid the Iraqi invasion by the US-UK led coalition nor lend its soil unlike its Arab neighbors. How long will these governments continue to milk the Palestinian cow to divert their people’s attention from their own failures? How long will the Arab people allow themselves to be duped by their governments? The descendants of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Syria have never been granted citizenship. That is a travesty, but certainly, it is an Arab travesty, not an Israeli one. Moreover, since the ostensible point of failing to naturalize Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon has been among other things helped keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict red-hot. Of course, Syria and Lebanon will continue to deny citizenship to Palestinians born in those countries, even if and when a Palestinian state is established, for reasons that have to do with their own internal politics. In the case of Lebanon, Palestinians are a source of cheap labour and refugee status instead of citizenship helps Lebanon exploit Palestinians. We need to introspect if we are treating Palestinian refugees fairly in our own countries before blaming Israel.

It is absolutely true that there is illegal occupation by the Israelis of Palestinian land. In fact, it won’t be too far fetched to say Israel is the last remaining colonial power of the 20th Century.  However, isn’t it time the rest of the world realised that terrorist organizations like the Hamas are destroying the legitimate freedom struggle of the Palestinians?  It is important to remove the component of violence that comes in handy for the Israeli government to justify its own violence against the Palestinian people.


In this land of unending, eloquent rhetoric, the mentality of many people, especially the leaders is that the problem is always with the other side. End the occupation is countered by end the violence and vice versa. Almost every question is answered with another question. For example, how do you justify tank gunning down three kids on bikes whose father is a Palestinian bus driver in Israel? This question is answered with how can you explain away the death of your best friend who wanted to be a teacher for peace in a suicide bombing by a Palestinian? Dehumanize the "enemy", shoot your way out and kill them all seems to be the only consensus on both sides. This is a war in which both sides seem bent on annihilating each other. Amidst this, a chilling new generation of young people is growing up believing they'll die young anyway and espouse hate and vengeance on both sides

We, the people of rest of the world are fueling this vicious cycle of grief-anger-violence that has wreaked havoc on this ‘cursed’ Holy land by crying foul when a high profile leader of the Hamas is killed but not when innocent civilians on both sides get murdered. The civilians are statistics to most of us and the dead are exploited by organizations like Hamas and governments of the Middle East including Israel. World over, people talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and argue heatedly and then go about their daily routine and forget about it. This is slowly becoming more of a talking point for many than a real issue, especially governments all over the world and even the United Nations.

The whole approach to finding peace in the region has been wrong, and the road map will not succeed taking into account the present circumstances with the peace initiative forced from outside by the famous quartet, as it doesn't include the Arab League or the Israelis (okay there is the UN, as if it has a say in this). But a debate is essential if there is to be a peace process. A peace process would work only if there is prolonged civil society involvement that culminates in an Arab-Israeli peace summit.  Pressure from outside never helps bring a permanent peace solution, at maximum a prolonged lull to a region. Sri Lanka is a good example of how forced solutions from the outside don’t work. Moreover, popular support on both sides is essential to overcome fringe pressure groups like Hamas and right wing Zionists on both sides that don't want to see the road map succeed because of doubts, fears and complete lack of trust/ belief that the other side can do anything right. If people in the region fail to recognize this is true for both sides and that mainstream politicians on both sides may seek to undermine each other by using these fringe groups, then searching for peace is like looking for the forest among the trees.

Every killing, house demolition and suicide bombing opens up old scars. It is untenable for Israelis to live in terror. It is unsustainable for Palestinians to live in occupation, squalor and fear. Maybe an Israeli Mandela or a Palestinian Gandhi is their only hope but where will he come from with such anger, politics of victim hood and mob mentality on both sides?

Let us wash the blood off our own hands first. It is time the rest of world stopped screaming foul and supported non-violent organizations like Grassroots International for Protection of Palestinians, People’s Voice, Netivot Shalom, Gush Shalom and the Joint Israeli-Palestinian Action Group for Peace. It is only by strengthening and supporting these organizations and the people who represent them as opposed to supporting violent organizations like Hamas, that this strife torn land will ever witness peace. Violence has been given a chance for over 50 years to bring about a settlement, now it is time to give peace a chance. To do this we need to support those who practice non-violence and peace, thus removing the only excuse that Israeli government has had in justifying its violence against the people of Palestine to the rest of the world.

© 2004 Deepa Kandaswamy

NON-VIOLENCE: HOW RELEVANT IS IT TODAY?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi

Non-Violence is one of the most misunderstood concepts of today’s world and look at the consequences. Countries are fighting wars to achieve peace and violence is justified as the only means through which peace could be achieved! When military leaders say they are planning to bring peace to a nation, one can safely assume that they mean that a war is being planned. The result of this form of peace is death, anger and more people who want revenge. They end up starting a war of their own. Therefore, we end up with a vicious cycle of grief-anger-violence that wreaks havoc on innocent millions. It appears our so-called knowledge–based civilized societies are stepping back to the Bronze Age where this kind of wars was the norm.

WHAT IS PACIFISM?
According to William James, American philosopher and psychologist, “Pacifism is the moral equivalent of War.” Simply, pacifism is an active form of protest against wars, injustice, and violence in an organised manner using non-violent means. It is the alternative to war, where people express their opposition as a conscientious objector but do not kill or resort to violence.
Refusing to participate and demanding the end of an unjust practice is what pacifism is all about. It is an effective tool but it takes time, work, and patience. The results are always better than a quick war with many casualties and long, bitter memories that continue the cycle of hate.
However to practice pacifism successfully and effectively, the pacifists need to achieve four objectives first.

An environment favorable to peace must be established.
The potential causes of conflict, which include factors as the quest for power, fear, foreign occupation, and economic competition, must be greatly decreased or eliminated.
Means for the resolution of clashes must be provided, as in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and trial procedures.
Ways must be found to ensure adherence of the agreements that are made.

Pacifism has taken many forms in modern history. Refusal to work and wear foreign clothes made by the colonizers and demanding freedom as Gandhi and his fellow Indians did was pacifism in practice. When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat, this was another form of pacifist protest. It takes more courage to confront an armed person or an angry mob non-violently. This act by Rosa Parks set off the boycott of buses by African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama led by Martin Luther King in the 1960s demanding de-segregation of buses was another act of pacifism. A boycott of goods and services of a particular country like the one almost all peoples of the world did when South Africa practiced Apartheid is a pacifist act. The anti-war demonstrations around the world along with the candle light vigils before the US and UK invasion of Iraq were all pacifist acts. The reason the anti-war on Iraq protests failed were primarily due to the non-elimination of the fear factor and the reason Iraq will continue to be a problem is because the “foreign occupation” and means of resolution are lacking in today’s Iraq.

ORIGIN OF PACIFISM
While many assume that, the origins of Pacifism lie in the Holy Bible and “Turn the other cheek” as the way pacifism works, the real origin of pacifism lies in the teachings of Buddha in ancient India. Buddha says, “I have never yet met with anything that was dearer to anyone than his own self. Since to others, to each one for himself, the self is dear, therefore let him who desires his own advantage not harm another.” Buddha and his disciples used silence and non-cooperation as forms of protest when they were confronted with threats or bodily harm. Later on, Confucius and other eastern philosophers advocated this form of protest. All religions advocate pacifism with varying degrees.

TYPES OF PACIFISM
Pacifism can be divided into two main streams namely absolute pacifism and relative pacifism.

Absolute pacifism: People who follow absolute pacifism are against all wars and violence irrespective of who, where or when it takes place. Absolute pacifists totally bar the use of force and rely on moral persuasion. Absolute Pacifism expects that the people who practice it will have the moral courage to face the aggression of their opponents and uphold their creed of non-violence despite provocation. It also assumes that this kind of non-violent defiance will end with the aggressors being affected by divine intervention and will be forced to change or face hell when they die. Absolute Pacifism has a more religious connotation, is advocated by several religions, and followed by members of religious groups like the Quakers.

Relative pacifism: Relative pacifism as the name implies doesn’t totally rule out the use of force. In this type, force is permitted in self-defense when attacked by another nation but not providing help to nations being attacked! This is because relative pacifists believe this will only end in formation of rival alliances making the world a more dangerous place. Relative pacifists encourage passive resistance instead of expecting divine intervention or urging moral persuasion of the aggressor. Resist but non-violently. This usually takes the form of civil disobedience movements like the independence movement in India against the British, American Civil Liberties Movement, Vietnam War protest and the movement to abolish Apartheid in South Africa. Relative pacifism is usually devoid of religious context as it is a people movement.

RELEVANCE OF PACIFISM TODAY
We are in the Age of Weapons. Many countries seem to take pride in the destructive force of the weapons they can build – nuclear, thermal, biological, antimatter, etc. Every day, the military-industrial complex is spewing out some new weapon or an upgrade of an older one. We have more military bases than shelters for homeless. However, more people die from hunger everyday, our governments are concentrating on building or acquiring the latest military technologies!
Religious zealots worldwide seem to ignore the very tenets of pacifism in their own religion – be it the Buddhist fundamentalists in Sri Lanka, the Hindu zealots in India, Islamic fundamentalists in Asia, Christian zealots in North America and Europe, Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, etc. It is astonishing they are doing this in the name of the very religion, which forbids them to commit violence! That this is happening all at once is not surprising as pacifism is misunderstood and scorned today. However, many great people of the past took great pride in being pacifists. Some famous pacifists include Buddha, Jesus, Hajar, Mahavir, Khadijah, Guru Nanak, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Abdul Gaffar Khan (also known as Frontier Gandhi), Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Albert Einstein, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Vida Goldstein, Dalai Lama and Aung Sang Sui Kyi.
The Tibetans are the only ones who reject violence and have been waging a peaceful struggle against China for over 50 years. Unfortunately, they are not getting the respect or coverage that is due to them. When the media does choose to cover their plight like in the movie,“Seven Years in Tibet” the lead actor Brad Pitt was banned from entering the country! Other media like print and TV has failed world wide to create awareness about the Tibetan struggle. However, China, which is a nuclear weapon state and a superpower, is afraid of them. So much so, that Chinese who have annexed Tibet has a law which makes it punishable to carry a picture of His Holiness, The Dalai Lama in Tibet even though he lives in exile in India. In the end, Tibetans will win without having resorted to violence and terrorism.

Mahatma Gandhi in a speech advocating pacifism and non-violence said, “Non-violence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of man requires obedience to another law—to the strength of the spirit.” Looking at our world today, one will easily realise that pacifism is more necessary today than ever as this age of weapons is proving destructive.

For those who say they are not a violent people, re-examine your premise for all of us are practicing double standards in violence. If a teacher or a fellow student hits your child, all of us take objection to it and make the other child apologize. If a female was attacked, we scream harassment and object to the violence. However, we continue to cheer on our governments or militant organizations to commit acts of violence and war in the name of freedom and justice! We cannot have double standards on violence. Let us hope we all find the strength within to maintain an era of peace and destroy the scourge of war for otherwise we will be stuck in the vortex of violence and death, which is the insane alternative.

Copyright © 2007 by Deepa Kandaswamy