Israel and Pakistan

[Solomon2]

Israel and Pakistan

By Khaled Ahmed
Published: September 1, 2012

The writer is Director South Asian Media School, Lahore khaled.ahmed@tribune.com.pk

CNN host Christiane Amanpour talked to former Israeli foreign minister Ms Tzipi Livni on August 10, 2012 on Israel going religious. Amanpour asked why she had resigned from the centrist opposition Kadima Party and left the Israeli parliament in May 2012. Ms Livni accused the ultraorthodox elements of Israel of wielding more power than they should. She thought other parties gave the monopoly on the Jewishness of the state of Israel to the rabbis. She attacked Likud chief and prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu for kowtowing to the ultraorthodox.

The ultraorthodox Jews, she said, believed that the sole source of authority was not the law or the Supreme Court but the Halakha, the Torah, the rabbi. She believed that Israel “needed a constitution and a clear definition of what the Jewish state really is”. She said: “The meaning of a Jewish state is from a national perspective, not a religious one. And we need to define this in a constitution”.

Pakistanis believe that Pakistan and Israel are the only two states which came into being in the name of religion. They imply that Israel is a religious state. Insofar as the Pakistan Movement in British India and Zionism in Europe were born in a secular environment, the comparison between Zionist founder Theodor Herzl and founder of Pakistan Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah is valid.

Herzl was rejected by the rabbis of Europe and Russia; so was Jinnah by the dominant religious parties of India. If Jinnah created Pakistan for Muslims of India, then his struggle is comparable to Herzl’s Zionist struggle for the creation of a homeland for the Jews.

Are both religious states? Today, ‘officially’, Jinnah created Pakistan for Islam. This doesn’t jibe with Herzl’s Zionism. After 1948, Israel was ruled by socialist Ben Gurion and his Mapai Party which later became the Labour Party. Jinnah announced, in September 1947, that Pakistan would be a secular state. In this, he can be compared to Ben Gurion, who declared Israel a secular liberal democracy in 1948.

But former prime minister Ben Gurion should actually be compared to prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan and here the comparison becomes invalid. In 1949, Liaquat Ali Khan tabled the Objectives Resolution and termed the Holy Quran and Sunnah the founding principles of the state. Ben Gurion stuck to the Declaration of Independence which said that Israel would be secular.

Because of the quarrel over religion, the Israeli constitution could never be made. A theocratic Israeli state could not be accommodated because of Western objection and the dominant Ashkenazim opposition.

But there are ‘negative’ similarities. Israel began by ethnically cleansing the non-Jews. Then, it failed to negotiate a social contract with the residual Palestinian Arabs in Israel. Two million people were driven out and Ben Gurion failed to negotiate his democracy with the one million Arabs left behind. Pakistan and India ethnically cleansed a mass of population from both sides.

The Objectives Resolution of 1949 gave full rights to the minorities. The Declaration of Independence of Israel promised “full rights to all citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex”.

Israel never declared martial law like Pakistan but it put the Arab territories under military rule which denied fundamental rights to the Arabs. Pakistan’s martial laws denied fundamental rights to all Pakistanis.

Pakistan’s religious parties are given extra-electoral power by the politics of sharia and jihad. The ultraorthodox rabbis in Israel have the same kind of leverage. Both Israel and Pakistan are ‘security states’. Many Israeli prime ministers have been ex-generals. Pakistani generals also rule Pakistan. Both have been protégés of the West during the Cold War.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 2nd, 2012.

***

Solomon2 comment: One, K. Ahmed should distinguish between a politician staking a position and reasoned analysis. Two, even though I've previously considered Ahmed a worthy analyst this column contains numerous fallacies, some of which I'll attempt to correct here:

" Israel began by ethnically cleansing the non-Jews. Then, it failed to negotiate a social contract
with the residual Palestinian Arabs in Israel. Two million people were driven out and Ben Gurion failed to negotiate his democracy with the one million Arabs left behind. Pakistan and India ethnically cleansed a mass of population from both sides."

Sad to read that even the reflective Khaled Ahmed lives under this ignorant delusion - or is he being deliberately dishonest? The TOTAL population of Mandate Palestine in 1948 wasn't even two million people! There is dispute over the number of Arabs who left, but it isn't out of the ballpark to guess about five hundred thousand. Many Arabs departed simply because they were revolted at the notion of living in a Jewish State; some were expelled when they persisted in armed revolt; others were enticed to leave by promises from leaders of surrounding Arabs states that they could return after the Jews were exterminated. Quite a few departed, apparently, because they were transients who would have left anyway; only a trick of the U.N.'s unique definition of "Palestinian refugees" means they are classed as such.

Many Arabs chose to remain and became Israeli citizens. Israel is about 20% Arab. In Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv, vistors can count over fifty minarets.

The terms of the British Mandate were transferred from the Treaty of Sevres, in which the Ottoman Caliph agreed that he was " in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Jews have strictly followed this; Arab citizens retain their property rights and all lands settled by Jews have either been purchased from Arabs or were state lands bequeathed by the Ottomans to the Mandate and from there to the Jews. The Arabs violated the injunction, expelling Jews and seizing their property. Furthermore, the occupation of a part of the Mandate by Egypt and Jordan from 1948-1967 was never accepted by the world community; the lands were properly made available for Jewish settlement after 1967.

As for the Palestinian "refugees": as the Ottomans practiced it, the civil and political rights of a community are forfeit when it chooses to engage in armed rebellion. The Palestinian Arabs who claim to be refugees thus have no moral claim on the world, and can at most properly claim only pity for their mistake - quite the opposite of the 800,000 Jews who were kicked out of "Arab" lands, simply for being Jewish (in violation of the Caliph's injunction to the Arabs.)

Doesn't justice then require that the Jewish refugees from Arab countries receive due compensation, while the Arab refugees from Israel re-settle elsewhere and receive little or nothing for their collective attempts to slay hundreds of thousands? Instead, for political and sectarian reasons, the opposite has occurred and the world has fostered growing genocidal madness for the past seventy years.

Do Pakistanis really need to be part of this? Did 1971 teach Pakistan nothing?

What one is left with after disposing of the falsehoods and religious hatred is the certain knowledge that Israel is a more successful state than Pakistan, an example whose record of superior ethics and deeds are to be examined, emulated, and supported. That's not a racist statement, any more than saying one student in class receiving an "A" and another student receiving a "D" is a racist statement. It happened due to the qualities and circumstances of each student and the paths each chose to follow. Pretending otherwise - is that a delusion that Pakistan really needs?

(Proofs, references, etc. provided upon request.)

 

[Solomon2]

Is it really enough to remain mute on this issue, Pakistanis?

 

[iajj]

whatever turkics transferred to anglo-saxons - that which the latter subsequently to jews - all three races are rootless in nature and cannot be legal occupants of eurasian land, so the "rights" they putatively transferred among themselves aren't legal, and so the transfers aren't legal either. there are legally sanctioned ways of conquering a people, forfeiting their political and civil rights, killing them, and there are legally recognized ways of transferring rights the conquerors have previously arrogated to themselves to other powers, but the three rootless races aren't part of the international jurisprudence that governs the public rights of eurasian peoples and nations. so your "comment" is but a legal fiction composed by your lips and no other, greater force.

 

[Solomon2]

whatever turkics transferred to anglo-saxons - that which the latter subsequently to jews - all three races are rootless in nature and cannot be legal occupants of eurasian land, so the "rights" they putatively transferred among themselves aren't legal -

My, I don't come across new myths every day! Especially one that says because people who have been uprooted are rootless they then have no rights to a homeland, not even their old one from whence they came!

You seem perfectly aware that the Ottoman Caliph deeded Palestine to the Brits for the purpose of Jewish settlement. I guess you remember, as most people have forgotten, China's conflicts with the ancestors of the Ottomans. Well, the Ottomans were conquerors and settlers. The Brits are a mixture of peoples. And Jews' roots to the area called Palestine stretch back over 3,000 years.

I realize that isn't much time to a Chinaman but really, is it too much to ask that you have some heart for people who can't, through no fault of individuals living today, measure up to your long cultural heritage?

 

[Kompromat]

Is it really enough to remain mute on this issue, Pakistanis?

Comparison is unfair beacause we didn't 'ship' millions of jews claiming the land because jews lived there 2000 years ago. If the claim is valid then Australians, Americans , Canadians should prepare for aboriginal takeover in the future,

 

[airmarshal]

I dont consider contributions on Express Tribune as opinions. The point the writer is trying to make is that Pakistan was created as a secular state.

Okay for a moment, if we take the argument of secular-religious away, Pakistan was a state created for the muslims of India. Now go figure if it is secular or muslim!

The contributors on Express Tribune make it a point to prove that Pakistan was created as a secular state. I beg to differ. Pakistan is a state for muslims of India. Now that statement does not mean non-muslim have no place in Pakistan or the state should indulge in ethnic cleansing of non-muslim as was done by the Jewish sate of non-Jews.

Non-muslims have equal rights. Even if Pakistan becomes a fully functional Islamic state, Islam allows full rights to minorities. Right to practice their religion, right of property etc. In fact an Islamic state will not be Islamic at all if it does not make sure its minorities are safe from persecution.

Thus when Jinnah said for the state muslim cease to muslim and non-muslim cease to be non-muslim, he meant the state has no business in discriminating its citizen based on their religion. But the secularists of Pakistan consider this to be proof enough that Pakistan was created as a 'secular' state. Actually these secularists are the fake-liberals of Pakistan who think writing, reading and speaking english takes them to the next level of reasoning. In fact they are living the era of ignorance. They consider their opinion to be uncontested and whole truth and want everyone to accept it. If this is not extremism, then what is?

Writers of Khalid Ahmed type are not remotely familiar to even the basic teachings of islam. To them, only a 'secular' state allows the freedom they want to have for themselves primarily.

 

[iajj]

My, I don't come across new myths every day! Especially one that says because people who have been uprooted are rootless they then have no rights to a homeland, not even their old one from whence they came!

You seem perfectly aware that the Ottoman Caliph deeded Palestine to the Brits for the purpose of Jewish settlement. I guess you remember, as most people have forgotten, China's conflicts with the ancestors of the Ottomans. Well, the Ottomans were conquerors and settlers. The Brits are a mixture of peoples. And Jews' roots to the area called Palestine stretch back over 3,000 years.

I realize that isn't much time to a Chinaman but really, is it too much to ask that you have some heart for people who can't, through no fault of individuals living today, measure up to your long cultural heritage?

chinese records contain the earliest accounts of turkic activities, and even chinese records aren't clear what species of animals they were or where they first came from. the turkic race - their customers, features - isn't shaped by the land they currently inhabit, and so they can be properly called a rootless race that has no right to any land.

admittedly, there are historical records tying jews to the levant, but modern jews' moeurs and physiognomy were shaped not by the land and climate of israel but by their history of living a gelded political existence among other asian and european societies. so individual jews have the civil right to continue to live as the castrated political animals they have always been but collectively jews no longer have the sovereign right to the land of israel.

since legally jews have phrased the right to the land as one that derived from turkic conquest, the fact that the turkics are equally rootless and disfranchised in public law as a collective entity in this respect means the whole jew lie just cannot be sustained.

some chinese have a big heart for jews: just a few days ago ephone mentioned permitting out of pity a few million jews to settle in china, and while most chinese find jews living among chinese a repugnant idea, there is nothing odious and offensive as a judicial principle to allow individual jews to live in china. of course, jews in china, as jews in israel, can have no political rights; that is to say, jews in china must respect the chinese sovereign right to kill them. this killing need never happen, but jews have no right to settle anywhere in the old world without conceding the host nations' right to kill them, and if they cannot agree to this fundamental fact of jurisprudence, they may well emigrate yet again and be killed elsewhere.

 

[Xestan]

Are both religious states? Today, ‘officially’, Jinnah created Pakistan for Islam. This doesn’t jibe with Herzl’s Zionism. After 1948, Israel was ruled by socialist Ben Gurion and his Mapai Party which later became the Labour Party. Jinnah announced, in September 1947, that Pakistan would be a secular state. In this, he can be compared to Ben Gurion, who declared Israel a secular liberal democracy in 1948.

This author is out of his mind. I have seen nothing but a concept of Islamic state in Jinnah's speeches, never actually came across the word 'secular' in any of his address to public, statements or letters.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Both Israel and Pakistan may have born in the name of religion, however there is a mojor difference in both births. Pakistan was based on two nation theory, Muslims and Hindus of the undivided india divided their common country in to two, hence a legit birth of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in contrast Isreal's birth was illegit, it was created on occupied Arab land.

Is it really enough to remain mute on this issue, Pakistanis?

 

[Bhim]

Good to see that nut "iajj" banned. His posts were so distasteful and disgusting, he sounds like a fanatic.

 

[Solomon2]

This author is out of his mind. I have seen nothing but a concept of Islamic state in Jinnah's speeches, never actually came across the word 'secular' in any of his address to public, statements or letters.

Yeah, you need to keep digging. Pakistan's school curriculum was corrupted under Zia to delete such references, B. Bhutto wasn't permitted to fix it, and her successors don't seem to have bothered.

You've been betrayed by your teachers, Xestan.

 

[xyxmt]

whatever turkics transferred to anglo-saxons - that which the latter subsequently to jews - all three races are rootless in nature and cannot be legal occupants of eurasian land, so the "rights" they putatively transferred among themselves aren't legal, and so the transfers aren't legal either. there are legally sanctioned ways of conquering a people, forfeiting their political and civil rights, killing them, and there are legally recognized ways of transferring rights the conquerors have previously arrogated to themselves to other powers, but the three rootless races aren't part of the international jurisprudence that governs the public rights of eurasian peoples and nations. so your "comment" is but a legal fiction composed by your lips and no other, greater force.

I hate when people think in their language and then translate those thoughts into English, comprehende zilch

 

[PakShah]

As a Muslim from Pakistan I demand Sharia law for Pakistan and nothing less.

If a Thief steals he/she should have her hand cut off.

If an adulterer is caught he/she should be stoned to death.

Jinnah never said Pakistan should be a secular state.

I want what Islam says, not what any any other person wants that is in opposition to what Islam says on how to govern one's country.

If Islam says to rule according to Sharia law, then Pakistan should be ruled according to Sharia law.

This is common sense to any Muslim.

 

[Redbull]

What one is left with after disposing of the falsehoods and religious hatred is the certain knowledge that Israel is a more successful state than Pakistan, an example whose record of superior ethics and deeds are to be examined, emulated, and supported. That's not a racist statement, any more than saying one student in class receiving an "A" and another student receiving a "D" is a racist statement. It happened due to the qualities and circumstances of each student and the paths each chose to follow. Pretending otherwise - is that a delusion that Pakistan really needs?

Very true, we have a lot to learn from Israelis in particular. The commonalities between both countries are strong, secular Pakistan and secular Israel is the way forward for both, All this Halakah and Sharia mumbo jumbo will have to be kept to the side---for now at least.

 

[Xestan]

Yeah, you need to keep digging. Pakistan's school curriculum was corrupted under Zia to delete such references, B. Bhutto wasn't permitted to fix it, and her successors don't seem to have bothered.

You've been betrayed by your teachers, Xestan.

Amazing. How are you even sure that I studied Pakistan's local curriculum? You don't have any argument and you can't prove me wrong. That's the reality, Mr. Solomon. I know my country and its founding fathers more than you.