Maneaters of the Desert

In the wake of the Mumbai blasts, the Indian leadership must not forget support for Muslims of West Asia is crucial, not only for economic reasons, but politically expedient in putting an end to the hegemony of anti-Muslim Hindu sentiment. Sharon’s brand of Zionism is a breeding ground for racial politics.

India must consider Sharon’s track record, replete with assassinations of alleged Palestinian terrorists, bulldozing houses, starving and humiliating an entire people, confining them to their villages and responding to acts of terror by punishing non-combatant civilians. The occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip in the 1967 war led to a form of colonialism that continues till today.

A section of intellectual opinion holds Zionism as synonymous with democratic principles of equality of rights. Quoting Harvard sociologist Natham Glazer, a scholar in the area of Israeli politics and Zionism, Noam Chomsky highlights the often argued position of such intellectuals, unaware of the reality of Jewish racism.

Glazer is of the view that, ‘‘The state created by Zionism is a modern secular state in which civil rights are granted to all people of whatever origin and religion.’’ Such an admiration of Israel’s secularism and equality for all its citizens, may they be Arab, is rather ill-founded.

There is a ban on ‘‘inter-denominational marriage’’. The predominance of religion oversees even selection to the ‘‘Israeli basketball league’’. The orthodox rabbinate is the final authority in deciding who is a Jew. It must be clear there is no such thing as an ‘‘Israeli nation’’; there is only a ‘‘Jewish nation’’. Israel is the self-governing state of the Jewish people, not of its citizens.

Within Israel there is strict control on Arabs in the use of public funds or ownership of land or employment opportunities. The Israeli-controlled media churns out negative views on Arab culture. Similar criticism and ridicule of, say, Jews in America would be have been inconceivable ‘‘outside of the literature of the Ku Klux Klan’’.

On the other hand, Zionism itself has often been interpreted. Scholars like Gershom Scholem have stood against a political Zionism that imitates German imperialism, embracing the cultural Zionism of Ahad Ha-Am, stressing inner work (Innernarbeit) and an ethical core.

Many scholars object to an equation between Jews and Zionism, arguing there are dissident Jews who believe it is wrong to make Zionism the sole state policy, rob the area of peace and deprive Palestinians of their homes. Democracy and the right to practice a different religious way of life often clash with the extreme practice of Zionism.

Judith Butler, an eminent academic and a Jew, supports dissident Jews who ‘‘maintain that the violent appropriation of Palestinian land, and the dislocation of 700,000 Palestinians was an unsuitable foundation on which to build a state’’.

There is thus a critical alternative lobby that looks for Israeli-Palestine peace and justice. These are issues that need to be taken up by India’s foreign ministry and intelligentsia. Whereas there should be absolute support for the Palestinian cause without supporting the suicide bombings, Israel must have the right to exist, but only on the principles of democratic co-existence with different ethnic minorities.

Blind and short-sighted support for Israel and ignoring Sharon’s brutal actions represent an ideological shift for India. Meanwhile the Arab world looks on at India’s indiscreet and hasty dealings with these military entrepreneurs. A basketful of dollars spent on high technology weapons from Israel will bring in a truckload of wrath from the Arab Muslim world.

Learning to fight terrorism from a racist terrorist state is unethical. Even if it is diplomatically convenient.

The author is professor of English, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and currently Rothermere Fellow at the University of Oxford