In his article in The Hindu “Separated at birth” (Op-Ed, August 30, 2012), Mr. Saif Shahin is only partially correct in equating Israel with Pakistan. It is true that the failing Muslim state resembles the Zionist state in areas such as its abhorrent treatment of minorities, its extraterritorial ambitions, its religious extremism, racial supremacism and of course, its bloody history. But Mr. Shahin fails to mention that Israel is unique insofar as the most important aspect of its history is concerned — the manner of its creation.
The partition of India, howsoever undesirable and inexcusable it may have been, was a legally formulated and politically accepted division between two indigenous peoples. But Palestine was forcibly partitioned without the consent of its people and it was opposed by all right-thinking intellectuals of that time including Mahatma Gandhi. A quick look at Israel’s history would reveal the singular nature of its creation and what makes it unprecedented.
Its history
During World War I, Britain offered to back the Arab demand for post-war independence from the Ottomans in return for support to the Allies. Not only did the British refuse to honour their pledge to the Arabs, but they also gave a contradictory pledge to the Jews in the form of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to create a “national home” for them in Palestine despite not possessing any sovereignty over that country. As a result, Palestine was subjected to the British Mandate (1922-48) under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. But the mandate itself was blatantly opposed to the letter and spirit of Art.22 as it gave the Mandatory (the British government) the additional power “to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.”
It would appear that the aim of the mandate was to facilitate the immigration of the Jews into Palestine in violation of the rights of the original inhabitants, the Palestinian Arabs, who at the time of the mandate constituted 92 per cent of the population. Official records (cited in Henry Cattan’s The Palestine Question) show that in 1946, the Jewish population increased to 6,08,230 (out of a total population of 19,72,560) from 83,794 in 1922 when the mandate was approved by the League of Nations.
The Palestinians completely rejected this demographic change and demanded independence. Cattan writes that when the British government tried to limit Jewish immigration and grant independence to Palestine, the Zionists unleashed an orgy of violence, including the killing of 91 senior officials by blowing up the King David Hotel at Jerusalem, the seat of the government, raiding military stores, bombing Arab market places and homes, and even capturing and hanging of British officers.
Unable to control the Zionist terror, the British government in April 1947 formally referred the Question of Palestine to the U.N.
U.N’s double standards
It may be noted that the Mandate for Palestine had legally ended with the dissolution of the League of Nations in April 1946. But instead of granting independence to the Palestinians, the British continued with the mandate for another year.
Nevertheless, the General Assembly adopted on November 29, 1947, Resolution No: 181 (II) for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states with 57 per cent (14,500 sq. km) of the territory going in favour of the Jews who actually owned less than six per cent of the land and constituted less than one-third of the population despite forced immigration. The original land owners, the Arabs, got only 11,800 sq.km of their own property.
According to Henry Cattan, the U.N. had no legal right to partition Palestine as it had no sovereignty over that country. For even if it is assumed that Turkey relinquished its rule over Palestine (through the Treaty of Lausanne) in favour of the League of Nations, the U.N. could not have claimed to have inherited the Palestinian sovereignty from the League after it was dissolved in 1946 because no such arrangement was in place. Therefore, in the view of Cattan, Resolution 181 (II) was outside the competence of the U.N. He quotes renowned international jurist Prof. I. Brownlie as saying, “the resolution of 1947 containing a partition plan for Palestine was probably ultra vires, and if it was not, was not binding on member states in any case.” Given this damning history, Israel cannot be compared with any other nation on this planet. Not even a country like Pakistan.
(A. Faizur Rahman is the secretary general of the Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought. E-mail: faizz@rocketmail.com)
Keywords: Debate @ The Hindu, Israel-Pakistan comparison, creation of Israel, Zionism, Islamic fundamentalism
@Babu, Azad, Ravi Kumar, Arijeet: What the author has written is the truth, the correct history of the greatest injustice in the world, the creation of the State of Israel. What is there to be moderate? Truth is truth, whether you accept it or not. If you have any counter arguments, you should come forward with those, not just troll.
Just when you think there's an extreme one sided article, the Hindu offers column space to
another, who claims to differ, only with an even more extreme one sided opinion. Does the
Hindu ever think of offering space to an alternative view point, or does it want to remain the
mouth piece of an extreme and fundamental point of view to which it is ideologically aligned?
Who were the original inhabitants of the area called Palestine? It is the promised land to jews by God himself and the jews were the original inhabitants of the land before being thrown out by the aggressors during various periods in the history of Palestine. So jews claimed and got back the promised land. Why then crib over the matter?
Creation of Israel is far different;
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs
to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine
today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the
Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home,
it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A
religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the
bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the
Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling
a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab
excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting
what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their
country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong,
nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of
overwhelming odds."
-- Mahatma Gandhi, 1938. Quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples.
Rationally analysed, it balanced the equation of fair journalism. As
Hitler said, make a big lie keep repeating it and eventually people
will believe it. That's what happens now days during the presentation
of Palestinian aspects of their understanding of their situation.
People simply argued in irrational ways to call it antisemitic on
behalf of justifying the their prejudiced and fabricated version of
history, where appearance and reality is completely opposite. Sure,
the Jewish people suffered terribly during World War II and there is
no one (apart from ultra Right Wing neonazi types) that would deny
that. However, that can also not be a reason not to criticize Israeli
actions where warranted. And I completely agreed with Mr. Rahman on
his opinion regarding to differentiate creation of Pakistan & Israel.
Pakistan created from mutual consent between the power seekers on both
side and Israel created completely from the insanity of Zionist racist methodology.
The comments here only show the success of Israeli Propaganda or what they call PR campaign over the years.........!!! However truth remains the truth no matter how many people reject it!!!
It is remarkable that The Hindu allows such hate views to be published whilst otherwise
calling for media restraint in 'sectarian' promotion. Never the less, perhaps it is a good thing
we all hear how individuals/groups (who claim to be moderates) see the world. The language
of human rights and International law has been hijacked by these groups to serve the a
specific cause- the delegitimization of the Isreali State. After decades of terror tactics having
failed to deliver the goods, so called 'academics' are engaged in a propaganda campaign to
undermine the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. None of this will help in the
creation of a Palestinian State(a much desired outcome in this situation) or assist the tens of
thousand of Palestinians living as refugees in many Arab countries( without so much as a
chance of legal employment in their host countries). Rather than question Israel's right to
exist, the author should promote views to solve the Israeli-Palastenian logjam.
Mr. Faizur Rahman condemns Israel's "abhorrent treatment of
minorities" and yet is he aware that there are 1.5 million Arab
citizens of Israel, with full civil rights? There are Israeli-Arab
political parties, 17 Arab MKs in the Israeli Parliament and Arab
footballers represent the Israeli national team.
Tellingly, a survey of Israeli Arabs found that 83% would rather
continue to live in Israel, while only 11% would rather live in a
future Palestinian state. (Source: Kul Al-Arab, 2000)
He also condemns Israel for its "extra-territorial ambitions", and yet
fails to recognize that Israel withdrew completely from the Sinai,
Gaza and South Lebanon in order to pursue peace.
The allegation of "religious extremism" is bizarre - 67% of Israelis
describe themselves as non-religious. Tel Aviv, the recognized capital
of Israel, is among the most secular cities in the world and was named
the world's best gay destination in 2011.
Perhaps the author should visit Israel and find out for himself.
A. Faizur Rahman is just stating the facts. The History - period. And I
believe that it is an accepted truth as to how Israel came into being.
No matter how Pakistan or any other Islamic entity behaves that doesn't
take away or justify the atrocities placed on the Palestinians. Lets
call A spade a spade. Faizur Rahman stated facts about Israel, as it is!
Innocent Palestinians are being killed and have been deprived of the basic rights by the
Zionists. They (Zionists) don't give a damn about what International community or the UN
says. It also exposes the double standards of the US. The Palestinians don't even have
access to drinking water,forget about the education and other basic human rights.
For Palestinian brothers and sisters- Peace be upon you all.
It was a moderate thought? It is your kind of people who are waiting to explode not pakistan or Israel!
Israel is definitely created based on forced occupation -- Israel can be as bad as Pakistan but not worse than Pakistan as the author concludes. Pakistan victimizes its own minorities(Christians,Shias,Ahmadis,Hindus) to the point of savagery and disgust even at the highest levels of judiciary as seen in forced-conversion and forced-marriages of Hindu girls. Even the recent case of a 11-year old Christian girl being punished for so-called blasphemy shows how shameful, degraded and completely morally bankrupt the entire Pakistan state has gradually become. The author can start concentrating on that too when he has free time apart from Israel.
Israel doesn't resemble Pakistan from any stretch of imagination. The reasons are obvious enough. Pakistan is a nation which long ago disappeared, what now remains are a fragmented figment of imagination. It is a land where democracy masquerades the atrocities committed by its military and its spy service agency on the mass. It is perennially in a state of turmoil and is a country which is dominated by the military and by rampant corruption. It is ruled by its own secret service agency which it had once nurtured. It constantly wages war upon itself and as a nation it languishes at the bottom of every plausible aspect by which prosperity of a nation can be gauged. Abhorrent crimes emanating against India and the west have imbued it with a sense of pseudo-self-confidence.
Division of Palestine is one of the biggest crimes in 20th century as it has directly or indirectly led to other crimes!
"Faizur Rahman is the secretary general of the Islamic Forum for the Promotion of Moderate Thought." If the article is considered as moderate thought then what is extrimist thought?
It is an odd comparison between two powderkegs in the world.
Israel never encourage terrorism but was always fighting against it.Pakistan did nothing else.Israel is surrounded by enemies from all sides, which is forcing it to be on a constant vigil all the time. Pakistan is bounded by a peace loving nation, which is always ready to bend backwards to placate them and take the flak also.Israel is a democratic country, where free and fair elections are held and even big wigs are thrown out of power. Pakistan has been trying in the last 6 decades to only test democracy.Israel is protected by USA against oppressive regimes in the middle east. Pakistan extorts financial protection in the name of guarding its borders from soviets and talibans.Israel is a deterrent for the crazy despots in the middle east who care little for world peace.Pakistan is a melting pot waiting to explode at any time.
I completely agree with this topic which has an acurate description of how the zionists took over Palestine and claimed it their own without any right. The British had no right on declaring any decision on Palestine or on any other region.
The atrocities of Israel continue to this day especially on the Gaza strip. It is strange the the UN is silent on this topic.
zionists are then the pioneers of terror and the world blames the Muslims only.....
All rubish,who accept the so called nation pakistan,i personally not,me as a reader get hurt by this partaily baised article,dont know what happened to the hindu..
If there was ever a more one-sided argument, I haven't seen it.
Of course, this article brings out contrasting features of the creation of the state of Israel, than what was discussed in the original article.
However, this article seems to be bent on proving that creation of Israel was an injustice to the "original owners" of the land who were Arab, without any proof.
Again, comparison with Pakistan, was appeared to have come out of nowhere.
U are right. Israel is like no other. It's dynamic economy, fierce democracy for all citizens
who are not bent on its destruction is unmatched. There is no other country in history where
it's people are repeatedly exiled from there land and they return time and time again. There
love of the land is unsurpassed. That's why people like you will be forgotten while Israel will
live on.
The creation of a Jewish state in Palestine was Europe's way of atoning for the European
mistreatment of the Jewish people over centuries culminating in Hitler's Holocaust. What
could be better than to take what is someone else's and give it to another in an act of
contrition towards the latter? Basically you have expiated your sins without any cost to
yourself. That is so typically British. In every British colony, people have been set against
people resulting in simmering social tensions or even civil war and separation. Ireland,
India/Pakistan, Malaya, Srilanka, Palestine, etc and more recently Nigeria, Sudan, and so
on. Just as they precipitately left India, leaving mass ethno-religious cleansing, they upped
and left Palestine leaving the Jews and the Arabs to settle scores. The Arabs did not cover
themselves in glory either, wanting everything for themselves and making no effort to
accommodate Jews in lands where the latter had been present for centuries.
not a very historically oriented person;to me the battle for israel
sounds very much similar to babri masjid issue.both of them is about
birthplaces and its hard to justify one and ridicule the other.
To the writer, first of all Mr Shahin does not "equate" Israel with Pakistan. He only tries to bring a sense of identicality in their identities, and how they think and act in pretty much the same manner. Your saying "The partition of India was a legally formulated and politically accepted division between two indigenous peoples. But Palestine was forcibly partitioned without the consent of its people" is absolutely incorrect. Was not the division of Palestine "legally" sanctioned? I think you don't remember that hundreds of thousands were killed during the partition of India. The common people never wanted partitioin to happen, even in the times of the most gory situations, Muslims still wanted to remain in India. Some who wanted partition were communally blinded. I feel that you are blinded in your analysis because of the love for the Palestinians, but don't think that I hate Palestinians. I, too, feel sorry for them; but my emotioins do not get the better of my analysis.
This is a valuable backgrounder to what and why the imperial Great Britain and the
hegemon United States did to Palestine in 1947-48 with the approval of the United
Nations. It was justified in terms of the "homeland" doctrine, which itself was
founded on the Wilsonian principle of "self-determination". Viewed this way, carving
Pakistan out of India and Israel out of Paiistine around the same time are very similar
historical events. If past is past, without ignoring the history, the question for the
post-1948 Palistine and the post-1947 India is: What is to done now for the future?
-Vivek Sagar Minocha
Please Email the Editor