A specific class of Muslims continue to deny that the US
"war on terrorism" has added dynamism and given new legitimacy to the
centuries old war on Islam. Since this ever-intensifying war encompasses
almost every aspect of Muslim life, this write up deals only with the way
our so-called scholars-turned-US-mercenaries are scoring points for
self-projection.
These intellectual mercenaries have dwarf the military
mercenary by comparison, because what General Musharraf gets in return for
his services is far more than what the confused pen-pushers may just hope
to get in reward.
The best example of their latest escapade is Husain
Haqqani’s article in the Nation, July 23, 2003, which is
representative of the research papers being produced from American think
tanks, the State Department and even the White House these days.
Even the most naïve readers can understand the real objectives behind this
kind of write-ups. Wrapped in nicely worded prescriptions for the
well-being of Pakistan, there are well-studded gems for pleasing master of
our destiny, the Zionists in the U.S.
Realising Zionist power, the chief opportunist, General
Musharraf, took the lead through covert promises of recognising Israel
during his visit to the U.S. The
intellectual mercenaries are now trying to catch up with some confused
mixture of rejecting Musharraf and accepting Israel. Other than the
singular factor of not accepting General Musharraf in uniform, there is
hardly any difference of opinion among co-mercenaries.
Both believe, Israel is "a reality and it might be in
Pakistan's interest to overcome ideology to recognise reality."
Both suggest, Pakistan can "wait a little longer to be part of its
collective recognition by the Arab-Islamic world."
Both see religious elements "enforcing ideological paradigms on an
unwilling Pakistani populace."
Both conclude, "Pakistan's options for success and development would
certainly be better as a functional democratic state, which retains its
Islamic ethos through the conviction of its citizens rather than by the
enforcement of conflicting theocratic visions."
Criticising General Musharraf is just for the sake of
criticism and guaranteeing a slot in future set-ups. Most importantly,
wrapped in 1200 words brouhaha is the
real bomb of introducing the idea of anti-Semitism in Pakistan. The
statement through which they want to beat the chief opportunist is:
"Violent ideas, including anti-Semitism and sectarianism, should be
eliminated to pave the way for a tolerant society."
The strongest argument used in favour of recognising
Israel is that it is a "reality" and it is "in Pakistan's interest to
overcome ideology to recognise reality." Before discussing the realities
behind façade of Israel’s reality, let us assume, Israel is a reality. If
this is the standard for surrendering ideology there are two many
realities around to recognise. For instance, ban on Ten Commandments and
religious education is a reality. Let us ban Islamic teachings from school
curriculum altogether. Invoking God is politically incorrect. It is a
reality. Let us ban it as a basic step for a tolerant political
environment. Alternative lifestyles are a reality. Let us recognise and
allow same sex marriages, common law partnerships (living together and
procreating without formal marriage), out of wedlock births, gaybies
(babies belong to homosexuals), etc. because all these are undeniable
realities of the advanced age. Let us get out of our medievalism.
The answer comes, ‘you are wrong,’ because "recognition of
nations and states is a matter of international law," and it must not be
"influenced by political or religious sentiment."
Well, some one must let us know about the fate of countless UN resolutions
that demand Israel to live like a real state.
Someone let the poor souls of Taliban understand, where was the
international law when they were not recognised for many years. If the
answer is, they were "brutal thugs," who did not respect human rights; we
would love to know if Israel’s foundation is not laid in racism?
It is irrelevant to argue that refusal of most Muslim
states "to recognise Israel has not diminished Israel's statehood,"
because this is not the issue. The issue is of legitimacy. If the
principle did not allow many nations to recognize apartheid regime in
South Africa, it is again the principle that does not allow us to
recognize a racist and oppressive state of Israel. There is no need to
bring in Islam and scapegoat it as an ideology for nothing.
All we need to see is the realities behind the façade of
Israeli state. Not recognising Israel is not a denial of reality. It is
simply a denial to legitimise "an illegitimate child of Western powers."
Even recognition by every single individual on the planet cannot change
the reality of its illegitimacy, just as the entire Supreme Courts ruling
and legislations make out of wedlock births legitimate. Let us not forget
the reality that Israel is the only state established on the basis of
race. And what about the reality when the whole world at the UN World
Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001 was on one side and US and
Israel on the other. Still the world managed to achieve its historic
declaration condemning Zionism as racism and Israel for genocide.
Actually, the realities behind the State of Israel turns
its reality into façade, which no amount of time, power and number of its
recognisers can change. Let us not deny the reality that Israel will not
exist without racism. Not any anti-Semite, but "most Israelis have argued
that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state or a democracy if it incorporates
the occupied territories, because Palestinians would alter the nation’s
demographic balance."
One of the most important and influential newspapers in
the United States, The Wall Street Journal, opined that the "right
of return" of Palestinian refugees would result in the "demographic
destruction of the Jewish state."
When the same views of a virtual ban on immigration into his nation were
expressed by Austrian political leader, Jorge Haider, he was widely
condemned in the mainstream media of the United States and Europe as a
racist.
Asking to recognise Israel’s reality is no more than
asking to legitimise Nazism because political Zionism and German Nazism
bear some distinct similarities.
Joachim Prinz, a former Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress, in
1934 praised the Nazi revolution (1933) in Germany: "Only a state based on
the principle of the purity of the nation and the race can possibly endow
dignity and honor on…those Jews who themselves subscribe to this
principle."
The proponents of Israel’s reality must tell us if the
same thinking does not continue to be a reality till date. Zionism remains
a political philosophy that is firmly grounded in the anti-integrationist
racial thought of the past and present.
A former member of Israel's Supreme Court, Haim Cohen, described the
system that applies to Jews and Palestinians in Israel as similar to
"Nuremberg laws" of Nazi Germany: "...the bitter irony of fate which has
led the same biological and racist laws propagated by the Nazis and which
inspired the infamous Nuremberg laws, to serve as a basis for the
definition of Judaism within the State of Israel."
In the words of Zionist political thinker Moses Hess,
"Jews are not a religious group, but a separate nation, a special race,
and the modern Jew who denies this is not only an apostate, a religious
renegade, but a traitor to his people, his tribe, his race."
Israeli and American scientists are conducting studies to
emphasis the biological history of the Jewish people and prove how the
latter differ from the non-Jewish world.
This information is used to define into existence a "Jewish race" and
discriminate against non-Jews. Indeed, Jewish Zionists and their gentile
supporters would probably demand immediate annihilation of the countries
involved if, for example, it were found that Muslim scientists were
attempting to determine how Muslims differ from non-Muslims in
genetic-biological sense, and this information would be used to implement
racially discriminatory policies.
The obvious reality of scientific studies is that the
Zionists are refusing anyone the right to settle in Israel if he does not
have "Jewish genes." With this in mind, consider point four of the Nazi
Party Program of May 25, 1920. It reads: "None but members of the
nationality may be citizens of the state. None but those of German blood,
irrespective of religion, may be members of the nationality."
In contemporary terms, only those with "German genes" could be citizens of
Nazi Germany. Is this reality not enough to show façade of the Israeli
Apartheid state?
In words of Uri Davis, to mask Israeli apartheid, it was
necessary to present Israel to the world as an advanced form of democracy.
Thus, duplicitous legal structures were devised which effectively mask the
racial discrimination and apartheid.
A study of Israeli and South African apartheid published in the 1980s
brought the reality to forefront that "The parallels between South
Africa’s system of legalized racism and that of Israel are well-known in
academic circles but rarely discussed in the mainstream media, peace
community or halls of Congress."
Former Congressman George W. Crockett, Jr. noted back in 1985 that "Here
in Congress we are fighting against South Africa’s repressive measures,
and yet closing our eyes to the institutional repression and the brutality
that is daily being conducted against the Palestinians in the
Israeli-occupied Arab territories."
The former editor-in-chief of the Rand Daily Mail
(the Johannesburg newspaper that fought against South African apartheid),
Raymond Louw, further clarifies the reality that the situation in the
Israeli occupied territories is worse than the way things were under the
South African apartheid regime because the under South African apartheid
"there was a recognition that the blacks would continue to live in these
areas. Here the impression is that the objective is to push the
Palestinians out."
It is thus wrong to blame Muslims, or Pakistanis in
particular, that they are refusing to accept Israel purely on religious
grounds. Besides the above mentioned realities, the other important
factors that do not allow one recognise the façade of Israel are:
-
Not only Israel was founded on racism but through the
means of terrorism, brutal murders of men, women and children, exiling
700,000 of them for occupying their lands, homes, gardens and farms.
Among those events was the sadistic massacre of 254 Palestinian at Deir
Yassin. It was an especially vicious, cold-blooded massacre
characterized by Jews cutting apart the bellies of pregnant women.
Former Israel Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, a participant in this
horrendous massacre, boasted of the terrorism of Deir Yassin. He wrote
that there would not have been a State of Israel without the "victory"
of Deir Yassin. "The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on other
fronts... In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, 'Deir Yassin."
-
Zionist plan is to incorporate the West Bank within
Israel but only after ethnic cleansing by repeating the same terrorism
and brutality that preceded for the establishment of Israel. Israeli
refusal to accept the right of return of the Palestinians is due to
their fear of altering the nature of the Jewish state. And leading
Americans and American media outlets approve this philosophy.
-
As for the allegation of anti-Semitism in Pakistan is
concerned, Pakistanis have no reason to hate Jews. They rather hate the
Zionist philosophy and activities. As far the Semites are concerned,
people of this regions have the same genes. Furthermore, according to
Arthur Koestler over 90% of European Jews were Ashkenazi people who were
Caucasian converts to Judaism. It means that less than 10% Jews are
Sefardic and may qualify to be genetically linked to Bani Israel (see
his book The Thirteenth Tribe).
These are just glimpses of the realities that do not allow
Pakistan to recognize the façade of Israeli state. It is all too easy for
Muslim intellectual mercenaries to be swayed by their personal interests
and cajolery without serious study of cold historic realities. However,
those who have eyes to look beyond façades know what they are supposed to
do. We are not supposed to swallow, no matter how much the Western media
sweeten a practice based on a philosophy that is worse than German Nazism.
Interestingly, no anti-Semitic Muslim, but diligent non-Muslim researchers
have discovered all these tips of the icebergs. All we can do is to accept
the reality or continue to live in denial because the majority has opted
so.
Notes:
Haqqani, Hussain. "Israel or
the home front," The Nation, July 23, 2003. See:
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/July-2003/23/EDITOR/op1.asp
To see how Jews are reluctant to recognize Israel, please visit:
WHY JEWS ARE OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE, See:
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ and
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbis.htm
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
Ibid. Haqqani, Hussain.
In the words of Founder of Pakistan, Israel is an illegitimate
child of Western powers. (25th October 1947).
Jewish Middle East analyst, Mitchell Bard, says in Ohio’s most
important newspaper The Plain Dealer, January 19, 1989, p.3-E.
The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2001, p.A26.
Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich And The Palestine Question,
pp.16-21.
Quoted in Dr. Robert John, Behind The Balfour Declaration: The
Hidden Origin Of Today’s Mideast Crisis (Institute for Historical
Review, 1988), p.35.
See Nature, 21 March 1985, p.208; See the Proceedings Of
The National Academy Of Sciences, 9 May 2000, as reported on in
Nicholas Wade, "Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish
Diaspora," New York Times, 9 May 2000.
Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State, pp.4, 25, 44, 49, 53,
55, 58, 60.
Louise Cainkar, ed., Separate And Unequal: The Dynamics Of South
African And Israeli Rule (Chicago: Palestine Human Rights Campaign,
1985), see Preface.
De Reynier, J. (1950). Chief Representative Of The International
Committee Of The Red Cross In Jerusalem. (A Jerusalem Un Drapeau Flottait
Sur La Ligne De Feu', Geneva.
Ibid. The Wall Street Journal, February 7, 2001, p.A26.
Abid Ullah Jan, the
author of
"A War on Islam?,"
is a regular
contributor to
Media Monitors Network (MMN).