Typically, I misplayed the bounce on the Pankaj Mishra post earlier today about the reverence among Hindu nationalists for Hitler and Zionism. My friend of Indian extraction gets it right:
That’s one thing I love about the Israel-India alliance– Indian neo-Nazis teamed up with the pro-Israeli right. Remember that the next time Krauthammer and Kristol talk about an Israeli-Indian alliance against Islamic militancy. The irony is that Pakistani Islamists thrive in that environment as their reason for being is defending “Muslims” against Hindu (and Israeli “Jewish”) threats.
Its a limited description of the Indian Israeli recent alliance. (When I was last in Israel, in 1986, they didn't have diplomatic relations, and I had to fly through Cairo to get from Tel Aviv to Mumbai.)
The Israel Indian alliance includes both principled content of mutual acceptance and the right to right alliance.
They are each opposed to terror, not just to Islam. India has a moderately warm relationship with Bengladesh (dominanantly Islamic).
The partition of India/Pakistan and then later Bengladesh has a sadder parallel to Israel/Palestine. That is that in India, Muslims are a very large minority, and although there are tensions between particular groups periodically, they co-exist. In Pakistan and in Bengladesh, where previously there were comparable Hindu minorities to the Muslim minority in India, there are few Hindus there currently.
The same occurred in Israel/Palestine. Although Israel is accused of ethnic cleansing (which does seem to be part of the Netanyahu/Lieberman effort), there is still a 20% Muslim minority there. In the West Bank, where there was a 10-20% minority of Jews prior to 1948, there are none except the settlers currently.
Palestine is proposed to be ethnically cleansed. Its a difficult reality to reconcile for someone that supports the concept of minority rights, and full democratic civil rights for all citizens.
Well, now seems like a good time to remind Phil which side actually admires Hitler….
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/669-Hitler-Wins-Palestinian-Primary.html
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_dec2007.htm
And of course, there was that little matter of the Mufti of Jerusalem….
But yes Phil, do keep saying that your support of the above is a "progressive" cause.
From the pro-Western perspective, the purpose of Jewish Zionists, Islamists, Neocons, and other subversive, anti-Christian religious cults and political movements in nature must be to remind Western civilization of the Christian roots, in their variegation, and the Christian character, that are the foundation of our successes.
Like they always taught in school: compare and contrast. But the Leftists would rather paper over our differences and let the iron fist of Big Brother keep order through the barrel of a gun.
Just because Hitler favored vegetarianism and was anti-smoking doesn't mean PITA makes any more (or less) sense nor does it make smoking more healthy.
Same goes for (pick your favorite incarnate if evil).
It is a frightening alliance, based on fundamentalism.
Isn't Israel now India's main arms supplier?
Strategically India might be comparable to the US in importance and hope for Israel.
Yet the religious alliance is unified in being anti Muslim.
Why does everything have to be so militaristic, so war like, aggressive.
One Blogger is talking about a current arms deal:
What about Ghandi and the Hindu concept of the universality of Humans. It all got reduced to armaments …
A google search for "bjp rabbi visited india" is not very peaceful.
"They are each opposed to terror"
Witty, you're such a stickler on certain points and yet you say this. What Israel opposes is terror aimed at itself–they're not opposed to terror in general, because like many nations they employ it against their enemies.
Exactly.
HENCE, my obscene reactions to Witty. It's not irrational. I'll admit that I go over the line and I should chill out.
But just read that stuff that Witty says WITHOUT being vulgar.
All powerful entities use terror. There is no point in calling people terrorists OTHER THAN to politically isolate and ostracize them. It's all part of imposing the Establishment narrative on a given conflict.
Witty, there is no comparison between Israel/Palestine and the Partition of India. Britain didn't carve out Pakistan for a foreign people (or one claiming ancient ties), it was for Indian Muslims who believed that they would not be represented properly under a winner takes all democratic parliamentary system.
Ball's in your court, Witty. Seems to me like ahmed has a core point in the whole I-P affair.
He dashes the idea of a single state, so we agree on that, validating the relevance of partition.
I favor the Arab League proposal, and oppose forced relocation of individuals from their homes.
I favor the right of individual Palestinians to their day in court, denied since 1950 by Israeli law, preferring compensation to individual owners if possible, right of return ONLY if title claims are so clear and the taking was so aggregious that restoring residence after 61 years and who knows how many transfers is most just. (Probably VERY VERY few cases.)
I favor the right of Jews formerly residing in the West Bank, to their day in court, denied since 1948.
It seems simple to me, 67 borders as sovereignty, civil law for title claims, emphasizing current residence as primary.
I know that doesn't satisfy the "get the fuck out" crowd, but its the most just way to resolve specific issues.
I ASSERTIVELY OPPOSE suspension of Jews' civil rights to defend even contested property rights on over-simplified political assertions.
Rights, not suspension of rights in the name of asserting them.
I don't understand the post. Phil thinks that we got into WW2 on the wrong side. Believes that shooting jews is charming. And totally ignores that fact that 40,000 Palestinian Jews were in the British Army. ( and before 1948 when you said Palestinian you meant Jews ) Abbas wrote his thesis that the holocaust didn't occur. And that there was a Bosnia Moslem SS division. And that the Arabs threw in with the Nazi's and couldn't wait for Rommel to hit the area so they could do their part in the final solution.
And that the Arabs threw in with the Nazi's and couldn't wait for Rommel to hit the area so they could do their part in the final solution.
Bullshit.
Today's news from Pakistan: "A group of gunmen attacked a police academy and rampaged through it for hours Monday, throwing grenades, seizing hostages and killing at least eight police and three civilians before being overpowered by Pakistani security forces in armored vehicles and helicopters, authorities said."
Must be because of Pakistan's secret ties to the Israelis.
I said, they're pseudo-gangs — the term is from Kitson's classic work on counter-insurgency.
Maybe if i don't say whose, my comment will stay up, even.
And that the Arabs threw in with the Nazi's and couldn't wait for Rommel to hit the area so they could do their part in the final solution.
Bullshit.
Posted by: MRW. | March 30, 2009 at 02:07 AM
Why? Did not the spiritual father of the Palestinian people beg Hitler to help rid him of his Jewish problem? or are you planning to lie about it?
Did not the spiritual father of the Palestinian people beg Hitler to help rid him of his Jewish problem?
That's a gross exaggeration of the Mufti's importance. But, that notwithstanding, it seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing for him to have done in the circumstances.
@ Berel,
You ignore the Palestinian people were being dispossessed. Don't they have an equal right to side with whomever might help them as Israel has been doing since European Jews started grabbing Pal land over a century ago?