babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Palestine and Kashmir: a comparison

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Palestine and Kashmir: a comparison
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 December 2005 01:40 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jammu and Kashmir has about 11,000,000 people(the Indian province, not the Pakistan province.) Palestine has about 4,000,000.

The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. The process of partition had claimed many lives in the riots. Many others were raped and looted. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims; "ghost trains" full of severed breasts of women would arrive in each of the newly-born countries from across the borders.

15 million refugees poured across the borders to regions completely foreign to them, for though they were Hindu or Muslim, their identity had been embedded in the regions where there ancestors were from. Not only was the country divided, but so were the provinces of Punjab and Bengal, divisions which caused catastrophic riots and claimed the lives of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike.

Finally most of the problems were resolved, except Jammu and Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state that was not allowed to join Pakistan. The UN demanded a referendum, India refused. The crisis became an entrenched feature of life in the region. It has been a huge source of tension, a major motivator for Islamist militancy, and a training ground for terrorists.

The partition of Israel and Jordan, and the plight of those Palestinians who remained in refugee camps, has obviously had similar consequences for the world.

The Muslim world is no doubt grateful for the interest of the west in the Palestinians, even if we seem to have written off the Kashmiris.

Israelis might well ask "why have you accepted Indian oppression while singling out Israel?"


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 December 2005 02:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Muslim world is no doubt grateful for the interest of the west in the Palestinians, even if we seem to have written off the Kashmiris.

I dunno; the "Muslim world" pretty well blames the West for the plight of the Palestinians.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 18 December 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
While the west is certaily not blameless either is the "Muslim world". Sometimes its as important to look inward as it is to look outward.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 December 2005 08:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I have to agree. When we are at fault for something it is important to point out what is wrong whith what the other guys is doing. Its called, making the other guy take responsibility!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 12:05 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
the "Muslim world" pretty well blames the West for the plight of the Palestinians.

No doubt there is lots of blame to be shared, in Palestine, in Kashmir, and in many other such places.

If we want to talk about the responsibility of various parties, is it relevant to look at the responsibility of whoever in Egypt, in Syria and in the Arab League gave the orders during May 14 to June 11, 1948, to invade and conquer the territory allocated to the Jewish State by the UN and establish a unitary state in Palestine? I'm not suggesting this was unprovoked, since there were already a great many Arab refugees fleeing from the areas allocated to the Jewish State, but it was a decision with adverse consequences -- the Makba -- felt to this day, wasn't it?

Or was this inevitable? Wikipedia says between 700,000 and 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees were created during this conflict, while more than 600,000 of the Jews living in Arab countries and territories fled or immigrated to Israel, with another 300,000 seeking refuge in various Western countries, primarily France. Would this have happened even if the Arab League had never invaded on May 15, 1948? Was it as inevitable a result of partition as the movement of 15 million refugees in both directions between Pakistan and India as a result of that partition?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not suggesting this was unprovoked, since there were already a great many Arab refugees fleeing from the areas allocated to the Jewish State, but it was a decision with adverse consequences -- the Makba...

The Nakba.

Is there any point to this thread?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 10:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely there is. Assuming of course that Mr. Days short summary of the events of 1948 is factually correct, we can now move on to other areas of historical debate, and apply the same system of morality to them.

For instance, why not look at Emperor Hirohito's ultimate responsibility for the internment of Japanese Americans -- Misei -- because of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour?

Certainly there is a historical parrallel here? Has Japan owned up and paid compensation toward the end of assauging the harm caused by their causing Japanese American's to be stripped of their property and moved into refugee camps?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 19 December 2005 02:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not sure I see the connection to the fact that it was the US government's decision to intern the Japanese-Americans.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
I'm not sure I see the connection to the fact that it was the US government's decision to intern the Japanese-Americans.

I think the implication was that the Israeli occupation in 1948 of part of the territory alloted to the Arab State by the UN in 1947 was just as unrelated to the Arab attack on the Jewish State in May 1948 as the US government's decision to intern the Japanese-Americans was to Pearl Harbour.

Interesting parallel, somewhat, but I'm more interested in parallels dealing with partition.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 03:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Puh-lease, the expulsion of Arabs happened after indendence was declared, Arabs residing in Israel were deemed by the UN to be Israeli citizens unless they specifically and in writing opted out.

You should get suspenders for your morality.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 December 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Muslim world is no doubt grateful for the interest of the west in the Palestinians, even if we seem to have written off the Kashmiris.

Israelis might well ask "why have you accepted Indian oppression while singling out Israel?"


Who is "we"?

The "Muslim world" is grateful to the West? For Palestine? What kind of rhetoric is that, "no doubt grateful"? I have a lot of doubts m'self, and simply emitting hot air like that doesn't make anything so.

Same kind of manipulation going on in that last paragraph, plus, of course, the sin your mother used to send you to your room for (well, maybe yours didn't): arguing that two wrongs make a right.

I am - how can I put this? - aghast.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 19 December 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought it was more of the famous "magician's distraction" tactic than "two wrongs make a right", personally. Either way, I don't really get the point of the original post. Wilf's been here long enough to know that we don't generally acknowledge the Spotlight logical fallacy.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, part of the reason Wilf may be having trouble keeping his supenders up is that he is operating from a counter factual historical narrative of the kind to be found in Israeli high school history texts.

quote:
The new historiographical picture is a fundamental challenge to the official history that says the Jewish community in Palestine faced possible annihilation on the eve of the 1948 war. Archival documents expose a fragmented Arab world wrought by dismay and confusion and a Palestinian community that possessed no military ability with which to threaten the Jews. The Arab world went about announcing its commitment to the Palestinians in strident, war-like rhetoric, but it did little on the ground to save Palestine.

The new historians argue that annihilation was impossible because of Jewish superiority in two crucial areas, diplomacy and military preparedness.4 The Jewish community had carried the day in diplomatic maneuvering in the United Nations and by accurately analyzing the balance of military power on the ground. An unwritten agreement between the Jewish Agency and the Arab Legion, the strongest Arab force in the area, practically guaranteed that the battle-ready Jewish forces would prevail.

There are sociological explanations for the Jewish victories on the diplomatic and battle fronts. The Jewish community in Palestine is depicted as more highly organized than the Palestinians and much more aware of the need to prepare itself for the end of the Mandate. The Jewish community benefited from a neutral British policy. London was worried only about securing a safe British withdrawal from Palestine once it had decided it could no longer hold the territory.

Contrary to both the Palestinian and Zionist historical narratives, the new historians do not accuse Britain of favoring either side or of collusion with the enemy. They also reject the claim of Jewish extremists that their terrorist campaign forced Britain to withdraw. An economic crisis in Britain and the overall decline of the British Empire forced Britain to be content with holding only those areas of its empire that were of high strategic value in the Cold War era. Palestine was not one of them. Early on, leaders of the Jewish community recognized the imminent end of British rule in Palestine, while the political leadership of the Palestinians seemed convinced that the British Mandate would remain longer, especially after the failure of the Palestinian revolt against it from 1936-39.

From the moment London decided to refer the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations—from February 1947 onwards—the Jewish leadership in Palestine effectively mobilized its community and prepared it for the takeover of the Mandatory government and its functions. The Palestinian leadership, with its prominent members exiled abroad by the British, did very little in this direction, and failed to organize its community financially or militarily.

The result was that the Jewish community was superior both militarily and financially when a civil war broke out between the two communities in November 1947. Jewish superiority also was evident in the number of fighting men. In the local war, which lasted between November 1947 and May 1948, Jewish forces took control of all of the mixed Jewish-Arab towns in Palestine and seized crucial transport routes as well. The end of Palestinian presence in Palestine began not because few Jews fought against many Arabs, as the official Zionist version would have it, nor was it a miracle, as the mainstream Israeli historians tend to describe it. It was simply the outcome of a military advantage.

There also was the diplomatic battle over Palestine. In the official Israeli history this was another miraculous victory against all odds. The battlefield was the United Nations, to which the Palestine Mandate had been referred. The Zionist diplomats skillfully put forward the Jewish Holocaust in Europe in order to minimize the moral and political claims made by the Palestinian national movement or, as was more often the case, by the Arab states on behalf of the Palestinians.5


Questions for students: Is it possible that events transpired in the period between Israeli independence (1947) and the point at which the armies of the surounding Arab states became involved (1948)?

quote:
The new historians insist that the military balance of power, indeed the results of the war itself, were considerably affected by the political agreement reached between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Jewish Agency prior to the war. This agreement was tacit, not written, and it confined the Arab Legion to the struggle over Jerusalem and its vicinity. Thus it was disabled from joining a larger battle that could have linked it with Syrian troops entering Palestine in the north and Egyptian forces entering in the south. New evidence was found in Egypt of how Egyptian and Syrian generals were misled into believing their forces would eventually meet with the Legionnaires entering Palestine from the east. In return for limiting the role of the Arab Legion, the Kingdom of Jordan received de facto acquiescence from Israel to annex the parts of Palestine that became known as the West Bank.

Question for students: Did the Arab armies forcefully and with determination pursue the war for more than propoganda purposes?

quote:
The Jewish military advantage was translated into an act of mass expulsion of more then half of the Palestinian population. The Israeli forces, apart from rare exceptions, expelled the Palestinians from every village and town they occupied. In some cases, this expulsion was accompanied by massacres as was the case in Lydda, Ramleh, Dawimiyya, Sa’sa, Ein Zietun and other places. Expulsion also was accompanied by rape, looting and confiscation. Expulsion was not always direct. Sometimes the Jewish fighters terrorized and terrified villagers into fleeing their homes. In a few cases total surrender saved some of the population from expulsion, but not always.

Question for students: Was the expulsion of Arab populations part of an overall plan of expulsion, or was it incidental to military operations?

More here: Israeli Historians Ask: What really happened Fifity Years Ago? -- Illan Pappe

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Who is "we"?

The "Muslim world" is grateful to the West? For Palestine? What kind of rhetoric is that, "no doubt grateful"? I have a lot of doubts m'self, and simply emitting hot air like that doesn't make anything so.

Same kind of manipulation going on in that last paragraph, plus, of course, the sin your mother used to send you to your room for (well, maybe yours didn't): arguing that two wrongs make a right.



I'm not arguing anything. I'm no expert on either the Middle East or Kashmir.

For one thing, I'm asking whether both partitions had inevitable consequences, and why the actual consequences in both cases went beyond the inevitable. Kashmir need not have happened if the UN demand for a referendum had been accepted by India. As to the first occupation by Israel in 1948 and the second occuaption, I don't know to what extent they were just "to the victor the spoils," nor whether the UN partition boundaries were never viable so someone was going to have to lose, nor any of the other answers historians still argue over.

It is, however, a fact that the UN keeps passing resolutions, decade after decade, on the Palestinian question while they lost interest in Kashmir to the extent that India has, for decades, argued that the UN's silence amounts to agreement with India's position. And perhaps they're right. Which leads me to ask: if Israel had made peace with the Palestinians decades ago as they should have, would Islamic militancy be much less? Is Kashmir as big an irritant as Palestine? The greatest strength of the "The Islamic World Front for the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders" (Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyyah al-`Alamiyyah li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin), often conflated with Al-Qaeda, was and is in Pakistan. With all the attention the world has been giving the Palestinian question in recent years, I do think Kashmir is worth as much attention.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 19 December 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Many have argued similarly. some have suggested that there is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the only Jewish state while consistant human rights abusing states and/or crises that deserve as much if not more attention get pushed to the side.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 December 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A saying as useful as "Follow the money," and of course directly related to that thought, is "Follow the imperialists' interests."

In context, the big powers since WWII, especially the Soviets (and still the Russians to some degree, and now the Chinese) and the Americans have made strategic decisions about which developing nations to support/treat as allies, which to poke at, which to treat with nervous respect, which to subvert, etc.

Meanwhile, back at home, the propaganda mills churn out sympathetic or unsympathetic stereotypes of the people in these regions.

Israel has been an American ally from the start and the relationship has only grown closer with time, to the point where some American government officials seem not even to grasp that they have committed treason when they hand state secrets over to the Israelis.

India cleverly made everyone nervous by claiming to be "non-aligned" - was India the first? biggest? of the developing nations to play that role? So during the Cold War, the West figured it had to play India very carefully. Talk to J.K. Galbraith on this subject.

In spite of what has happened at the UN, and that mainly in the GA, I think, for obvious reasons (ie: the West, and the superpowers generally, are outnumbered there), I do not believe that "the Muslim world" has ever had a positive propaganda profile in North America until very recently, and that only on the left.

One exception: especially in the U.S., where celebrity is all in pop culture and monarchs look a lot like celebs, the local robber barons were for a time able to make their Arab monarch partners moderately attractive to the public. King Hussein always went down well, eg, and the Shah was a star. The Saudi royal family have been a tougher sell, of course, although that has never stopped the Bushes or Thomas Friedman.

Until the Bush administration figured out that they needed to bully Musharraf into an alliance post-9/11, I don't think that American relations with Pakistan had ever been very good and were in fact getting much chillier.

If what you're asking is has Pakistan been abused, from without and within both, the answer is obviously yes. And is that situation likely to blow up at some point?

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 05:07 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually they are quite distinct, although the problem of messy partitions (most of them engineered by the British -- Ireland, Palestine, Kashmir) have mainy similarities and also happened incidentally at the same time.

For one thing, Kashmir was not the subject of settlement by a worldwide movement hoping to reclaim an ancient homeland.

Kashmir is also composed of at least four distinct regions: Muslim Srinagar Valley, Zanskar Range, and Hindu Kush, Hindu Jammu, and Buddhist Ladakh.

In 1947, all princely states were told to join either Muslim Pakistan or Hindu majority, but Secular India. Kashmir's Hindu king who was installed by the Britished hemmed and hawed, but his hand was forced by Pakistan's invasion. India intervened, giving pretty much the line of control we see today (this account is contested by both sides).

The part of Kashmir under India's control has distinct status, while in Pakistan, Kashmir was Islamicized. Muslim Kashmiris themselves have traditionally followed a very Sufi-inflected faith which is very different from the rigid conservatism found in the Middle East.

Up until 1980s, India interfered in a heavy handed way in state elections, until civil conflict exploded in 1989. By the late 1990s, the militancy took on a sectarian hue, with Islamic militants trained in Afghanistan making life difficult for the 600,000 Indian soldiers in the state.

This brings us to the present, where elections have been held and tensions have subsided. In fact the recent earthquake killed more people than 15 years of civil conflict. India's increasing closeness to the US is also adding to American interest in resolving tensions between India and Pakistan, even though they have long fueled the conflict (support of Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Islamization of Pakistan under Zia, and even sponsorship of Sikh extremism when India was seen as a Soviet ally).

Interesting footnote, Iraq has long supported India's position on Kashmir, against most of the Muslim world (Secular states standing together?). Most everyone else tacitly supported Pakistan. However, India's position was always respected as they have stood strongly by the Palestinian side (Indians boycotted travel to South Africa and Israel for many years) until wavering recently with warming ties with Israel. Under the BJP, Hindu nationalists began making common cause with Israel, seeing both countries as bulwarks against Islam as well as potential allies of the US.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
the problem of messy partitions (most of them engineered by the British -- Ireland, Palestine, Kashmir,

[Thread drift]I've never read of Protestant refugees from the civil war in the South of Ireland streaming into the North in 1921, nor of Catholic refugees being expelled from the North at that time. There must have been a little movement of peoples, but not big enough to notice, or have I missed it? [/thread drift]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you are right in that Jerusalem stands as the centre of the world, or at least the Western press that obsesses over Israel-Palestine for good or ill, rather than tackle what is going on elsewhere. I mean, the press follows what is politically going on in Israel as much as it does here. For example yesterday on CBC, Sharon has a mild stroke and makes the lead story, while Bolivia elects its first indigenous president in all of the Americas, which doesn't even make it into the broadcast.

Also, the deaths of hundreds of people in Vietnam and India due to floods warrants a mere mention, while every explosion in Israel or missile strike in Palestine usually makes the news. What about the dozens of Chinese protesters who got shot?

Last year the city of Mumbai demolished the homes of 300,000 people in one of the largest, most draconian slum clearances in history, but no news at all.

What's up with that?


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 05:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Interesting footnote, Iraq has long supported India's position on Kashmir, against most of the Muslim world (Secular states standing together?). Most everyone else tacitly supported Pakistan. However, India's position was always respected as they have stood strongly by the Palestinian side (Indians boycotted travel to South Africa and Israel for many years) until wavering recently with warming ties with Israel. Under the BJP, Hindu nationalists began making common cause with Israel, seeing both countries as bulwarks against Islam as well as potential allies of the US.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


An ineresting note on this last is that I have seen some BJP propogandists, direcly associate the Brahmin Caste as a race, not just a class, and drawing parallels between "persecution" of the Brahmin and perecution of the Jews in Europe. It would seem that this "persecution" of the Brahmin, as a racism, takes the form of undermining their caste (class) privilage, something espoused by many Indian reformers.

Preverication is an international art form, not only practiced by Zionist propogandists.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 19 December 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Many have argued similarly. some have suggested that there is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the only Jewish state while consistant human rights abusing states and/or crises that deserve as much if not more attention get pushed to the side.

See? This is why I won't be coming back.

Mac is gone; Long Live Mac!


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 December 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We need 4t2 to explain Ireland.

This will be very rough, but most of the Protestants in Eire were the Anglo-Irish Anglican "ascendancy," often wealthy landowners, and yes, they met with some unpleasantness, but they also had the means to leave or to adjust at the time of independence.

The Protestants in the north were a more or less discrete group, English and Scottish Presbyterians simply transported there in the early C17 by James I, and cultivated hard through the next two centuries, especially after the Battle of the Boyne and given the continuing threat of the Jacobites (supporters of James II and the succeeding Stuart pretenders).

There wasn't the same easy or obvious class division in the north as in the south, even though the Protestants certainly flourished under London's protection.

The splitting off of the six counties I think has always been in dispute, but you need an expert to tell you which ones really shouldn't have gone to Ulster.

Of course, the partition itself was a tragedy, and we have to hope ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 05:41 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The partition of Ireland is a much smaller scale than the partition of India, but I'm sure some movement happened. There has also been a lot of violence since then, aimed at reunification (obviously!). However, Ireland is different because the North was retained by the UK as opposed to becoming a new country.

The worst clearances happened in the hundreds of years leading up to Independence. Cromwell was a real bastard.

The interesting thing about Hindutva as an ideology of the BJP (although they have strayed away from their roots to the wrath of the Sangh Parivar), is that it does resemble right-wing Zionism to a large extent. They have tried to rewrite history to emphasize the enormous damage and destruction exacted by Islamic raiders in the middle ages. The fact that this did happen, provides an easy entry into activating more insidious anti-Muslim chauvinism. The issue of the Temple Mount and rebuilding the Temple in fact finds resonance with the BJP's early 1990s campaigns to reclaim temples thought to have been destroyed and buried under Mosques (i.e., Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ram).

The proponents of Hindutva also see Hinduism as a national faith under attack on all sides by proselytizers of other religions, much like Judaism, which is not a missionary faith either.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 December 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
But you are right in that Jerusalem stands as the centre of the world, or at least the Western press that obsesses over Israel-Palestine for good or ill, rather than tackle what is going on elsewhere. I mean, the press follows what is politically going on in Israel as much as it does here. For example yesterday on CBC, Sharon has a mild stroke and makes the lead story, while Bolivia elects its first indigenous president in all of the Americas, which doesn't even make it into the broadcast.

Also, the deaths of hundreds of people in Vietnam and India due to floods warrants a mere mention, while every explosion in Israel or missile strike in Palestine usually makes the news. What about the dozens of Chinese protesters who got shot?

Last year the city of Mumbai demolished the homes of 300,000 people in one of the largest, most draconian slum clearances in history, but no news at all.

What's up with that?



Thanks, ceti.

I needed that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

[Thread drift]I've never read of Protestant refugees from the civil war in the South of Ireland streaming into the North in 1921, nor of Catholic refugees being expelled from the North at that time. There must have been a little movement of peoples, but not big enough to notice, or have I missed it? [/thread drift]


Yes you missed it and it happened a lot earlier than that, and it was an expulsion. The English also ethnically cleansed the highland Scots after Charles's attempt to overthrow George. Would you estimate that the brutal treatment of the Scots civilian population was the fault of the French, as they backed Charles's military expedition?

That said your point is well taken: large civilian populations do not as a rule move voluntarilly, usually they are pushed out by an advancing army or other circumstance.

I have always wondered why it is that in the case of Nakba, why it is almost universally held that the Arab civlian population is presumed to have run toward the massed Arab armies of invasion, given that I have never heard of a case in history where refugees move toward the conflict zone, but only before it or staying put.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 December 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One last thought: It seems to me obvious why people stay focused on the confrontations in the Middle East.

Wherever the U.S. decides it has met an enemy, there lies the potential for disaster for all the rest of us, maybe even a nuclear war.

People watch because they are afraid. I am afraid.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I think the sailent point is that Israel is very much our creation, and the people who populate it often our actual relatives, or friends of relatives, and or people we know. The relationships run deep.

This is much less the case with Kashmir, until quite recently, as immigration has brought the actual participants closer to our world.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe it's also hardwired into the politics of the late 20th and 21st century, where oil is the central pivot, and echoes of the Middle Ages are not just finding their way into the social and cultural fabric of our societies with rising fundamentalism, but also politically and economically.

Kingdom of Heaven indeed!

With Asia becoming more like the West with its highly wasteful and consumptive lifestyle, with the Middle East's politics teetering on the bring of bloody catastrophe, I personally think salvation will come from elsewhere -- Latin America. If every oil-producing country were controlled by a government like that of Venezuela's, we'd be well on our way to saving the planet.

Ok, major drift, sorry!


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's true in the West with the prominent presence of various diasporas. In India I think it would be Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits alike that are known and have been displaced by the violence.

Actually, that's ALSO true of Babble! The "middle east" gets its very own category (after the provinces, before the US!), while "the rest of the world", gets lumped into one! I actually find this quite discriminatory and in fact it perpetuates this overweaning focus on Israel-Palestine which tends to hijack every other international issue on both the activist right and left.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, this is major thread drift. Here you are going into all of this detailed historical analysis, and comparisons of various historical events, and such, and all of that interferes with the thread topic, which is how something that happened 3000 miles from Jordan River, among people who are neither Israeli or Arab justifies what happened in 1948 to the Arabs.

What would make you think that Oliver Cromwell and the Irish are relevant to this discussion?

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 December 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
That's true in the West with the prominent presence of various diasporas. In India I think it would be Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits alike that are known and have been displaced by the violence.

Actually, that's ALSO true of Babble! The "middle east" gets its very own category (after the provinces, before the US!), while "the rest of the world", gets lumped into one! I actually find this quite discriminatory and in fact it perpetuates this overweaning focus on Israel-Palestine which tends to hijack every other international issue on both the activist right and left.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: ceti ]


I have, forever argued this, except that I maintain that reserving a special niche for this topic, in essence is a means of burrying it.

I call it "the Forum from beneath the Windows Task Bar."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, I put this onto a new thread in rest of the world to see what other people think. Maybe there will be discussion or maybe not.

I could see that too, where more categories means topics getting buried..


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 07:33 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
India has about 150,000,000 Muslims. Unfortunately, as far as I know, we have none of them, or their offspring, on Babble.

I'd love to have their perspective on our middle east and other debates. These are the Muslims the Canadian left dreams of. They mostly vote centre-left (Congress) or Left. They're the core of the Socialist (Samajwadi) Party in Mumbai. They're a major component of the supporters of the government of India's Northern Province (Uttar Pradesh) led by the Socialist (Samajwadi) Party.

They're the descendants of those Muslims who heeded Ghandi's call to stay in India and not flee to Pakistan. They're largely secular (that's an oversimplification, but even the more faith-oriented ones are hardly Islamist.) They're a minority group, with the sensibilities of minority groups the world over, and remarkably little of the arrogance which the descendants of the Mughals might aspire to.

In fact, they're the largest minority group in the world. What would they make of this discussion?

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
One last thought: It seems to me obvious why people stay focused on the confrontations in the Middle East.

Wherever the U.S. decides it has met an enemy, there lies the potential for disaster for all the rest of us, maybe even a nuclear war.

People watch because they are afraid. I am afraid.



No argument. I'm not asking anyone to ignore the Middle East. However, we ought equally to be afraid of many aspects of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (also known as Harkat-ul-Ansar), the Al-Ansar Movement, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan, and the Jihad Movement of Bangladesh (the leaders of all four groups co-signed Bin Laden's World Islamic Front Statement, 23 February 1998, Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.) And Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Kashmiri militant group Al-Faran, the Tabligi Jamaat, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, Al-Jihad, Al-Barq, Ikhwan-ul-Mussalmin, Tariq-ul-Mujahideen, Tehriq e Jihad, Jamiat-ul-Ulema Mujahideen, and all the extremist groups that let off bombs in India from time to time. None of whom have significant support, as far as I know, from the 150,000,000 Indian Muslims.

It's noteworthy that neither HAMAS nor the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) have, that I've read, been associated with any of Bin Laden's groups.

Is our focus too narrow?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 19 December 2005 08:38 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Many have argued similarly. some have suggested that there is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the only Jewish state while consistant human rights abusing states and/or crises that deserve as much if not more attention get pushed to the side.

Perhaps you missed my post above. Spotlight fallacy.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 09:19 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Briguy:
Wilf's been here long enough to know that we don't generally acknowledge the Spotlight logical fallacy.

Indeed, but there are still a few people around who don't acknowledge there are many causes of Islamic resentment against the West, not just the one that gets media attention.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 December 2005 09:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Like who?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Like who?

I really wasn't thinking of any particular babblers. I was only stating how the Spotlight Fallacy seems to apply. But now that you mention it, TV news items and events in the Middle East do seem to attract so many posters on Babble that the Middle East gets its own forum with its own rules. Why aren't people so passionate about Europe, South Asia, Africa, Latin America . . . ? It couldn't be that Palestine is in the spotlight, could it?

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What puts Palestine in this spotlight?

Go ahead, say it.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 December 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know. Although one thing I did notice is that several of the most dedicated pro-Israeli posters on this forum generally started or posted in almost no threads about international events EXCEPT ones about Israel/Palestine (or some country nearby who did something in relation to the conflict), whereas most of the pro-Palestinian posters post about a much wider range of topics AS WELL AS the Israel-Palestine conflict, and about a much broader array of international affairs.

I wonder why that is.

And by the way, as I have explained ad nauseum, the reason the Middle East has its own forum is because of the dedication of babblers on both sides to discussing this issue - thread proliferation was crazy in the News and Politics forums a few years ago, and people who weren't particularly interested in seeing the same merry-go-round arguments crowding out all other discussion in those forums were starting to avoid them. It's the same reason we have a dedicated NDP forum - because during a leadership convention, it seemed every forum on the board was all NDP all day.

But surely you must have known that already since you've been here for long enough to have heard this explanation at least once before?

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 19 December 2005 10:26 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I wonder why that is.
[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


What are you implying?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 11:38 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll go out on a limb, and ask that you tell us.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 December 2005 11:39 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

What are you implying?

What are you implying that I'm implying?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

What are you implying that I'm implying?



Is dentistry involved?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 11:47 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
several of the most dedicated pro-Israeli posters on this forum generally started or posted in almost no threads about international events EXCEPT ones about Israel/Palestine (or some country nearby who did something in relation to the conflict).

Note past tense. I haven't been counting. How many are there now?

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 December 2005 11:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I haven't been counting either. If it's important to you, though, you could probably go through the ME forum threads and tally it up.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 19 December 2005 11:55 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Is dentistry involved?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 December 2005 11:59 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't get it.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 December 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Me neither!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 December 2005 12:12 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

See? This is why I won't be coming back.


Bah! you're been out sharpening your fangs I see.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 20 December 2005 01:50 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The middle east dynamic is true of the Canadian political scene as well -- on both sides. There is such a momentum built up too around these issues, that it is hard to jump into other regions of the world, such as the Lakes region of Africa where a regional war took over 3 million lives in the late 1990s with very little coverage.

It doesn't have to be so, but it is hard to generate interest in other issues - just ask the Haiti solidarity folks. Maybe it's monomania related to monotheism?


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 20 December 2005 01:56 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for Wilf Day's comment about India's Muslim population, that would be a fascinating topic, one that might attract a very different crowd.

Maybe we should begin seeding other topics, just to get the ball rolling. Then again, Babble has no dearth of babble going on, especially with NDP loyalists!


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 December 2005 02:04 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
India has about 150,000,000 Muslims. Unfortunately, as far as I know, we have none of them, or their offspring, on Babble.

Uhh, thou hast Me, in fleshly form the offspring of an Indian Muslim from India and whose Pakistani mother is also the child of people from what would be now the current political India.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 December 2005 02:48 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*hugs Mandos*
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 December 2005 04:07 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
the offspring of an Indian Muslim from India and whose Pakistani mother is also the child of people from what would be now the current political India.

None was too few, to coin a phrase. One is far better than none, although more would be even better.

Now please tell me what errors and oversimplifications I made above.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 December 2005 07:52 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, I don't think that Mandos is alone, as it were, but all this counting of heads and implying that we need to tag people by regional identity or origin is making me squirm.

It's always great when someone with deeper knowledge of a particular story volunteers to educate us on babble, but voluntary that has got to be.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 20 December 2005 09:13 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

I really wasn't thinking of any particular babblers. I was only stating how the Spotlight Fallacy seems to apply. But now that you mention it, TV news items and events in the Middle East do seem to attract so many posters on Babble that the Middle East gets its own forum with its own rules. Why aren't people so passionate about Europe, South Asia, Africa, Latin America . . . ? It couldn't be that Palestine is in the spotlight, could it?

It is definitely a factor of where the media concentrates their resources. There are very few papers and news outlets that carry stories of Muslim oppression or repression from outside of you-know-where. The Guardian is a rare example of a media outlet that regularly carries stories from elsewhere (Kashmir, India, Indonesia, the various -Stans) and sometimes other outlets follow their lead. But by and large, the stories we see on the news from the Israel and the OT outnumber those from elsewhere in the ME by 9-1 (maybe not so much now with the war in Iraq). Babble's concentration on the occupation is probably just a reflection of that 'bias'.

I'm not at all saying that Kashmir isn't worthy of discussion and analysis. There is horrible violence there because of imperialist errors, and it ain't pretty. However, your first post contained the following, which IMO is classic Spotlight fallacy:

quote:
Israelis might well ask "why have you accepted Indian oppression while singling out Israel?"

Sorry 'bout the drift.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Briguy ]


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 December 2005 09:55 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It's always great when someone with deeper knowledge of a particular story volunteers to educate us on babble, but voluntary that has got to be.

Of course. But I'd be grateful for any contribution by Mandos or others with actual knowledge of the 150,000,000 Muslims in India.

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Um, I don't think that Mandos is alone, as it were, but all this counting of heads and implying that we need to tag people by regional identity or origin is making me squirm.

Canadians of origins in India frequently so self-identify: The National Association of Canadians of Origins in India was founded in 1976.

I'm sure you don't make other Scots squirm when you demonstrate that identity.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 December 2005 09:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wilfred, are you missing the point on purpose?

It is not the identity that makes anyone squirm: it's the insinuation that people should be identified/self-identifying. A lot of people don't want to, and it is simply no one else's business whether or why.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 December 2005 10:02 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
See? This is why I won't be coming back.

Mac is gone; Long Live Mac!


I'm sorry you won't be coming back, Coyote, but dropping in once in a long while to accuse some other babbler of being a sock puppet or being like a banned babbler is really not appropriate. I'd love to see you come back and participate fully, and you're one of the posters who I always thought had a really good, nuanced view of this issue and was most willing to build bridges between the sides - but drive-by snark like this is unnecessary.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 December 2005 11:48 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ouch.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 20 December 2005 11:57 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just to be clear: No accusation of sock-puppetry. I am sure jpj is his own person. I think he uses the same arguments as Mac, and they are just as mean-spirited.

The basic thinking is "Your support for Palestine, even your interest in Israel-Palestine, is (at least in part) motivated by anti-Semitism."

Which, to me, is as disgusting as saying "Your support for Womens' and LGBT Rights, even your interest in their issues, is (at least in part) motivated by a hatred of Christians."

It is the same old canard, used in exactly the same way.

But you're right, Michelle. It isn't right of me to swing by and do that. Won't happen again.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 December 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So let me put it this way: my paternal side (the one that stayed in India) is largely in favour of holding a referendum in Kashmir, at least those I've asked. Despite that my paternal grandfather was a Congress politician for a time after independence, they are largely not fixated on Indian unity. Certainly my father is, but of course that might just be my mother's influence: my mother is a very strident (but disappointed) Pakistani nationalist who definitely has a Mughalish attitude towards India (break it up further please!)

My father's family can hold these attitudes...because my entire family is based in Southern India. As I understand it, the South is far less invested in the Pakistan/India conflicts than the North. The South speaks a different set of language (Dravidian) and more often than not has its own nationalist movements and it's own alienation of Delhi, which Delhi occasionally has to appease. Even so, my father's family hardly trumpets these attitudes.

My mother would say that being a minority, they are still somewhat cowed into making accomodations to the majority, and justified fear of this pathetic situation is what drove my maternal grandfather to become a Muslim League activist and move to the new Pakistan. Obviously she thinks that the entire Kashmir rightfully belongs to Pakistan and that the Indians are aggressors. Her cousins fought in the wars against India and were even PoWed for a time. She's rationally disappointed in Pakistan de re, but she certainly doesn't apologize for it.

Many Indian Muslims, particularly in the North where the conflict is "hot", are very stridently against Pakistan, which Pakistanis understand for the reasons I described above. And they are vociferously, almost excessively in favour of Mother India. Whether this will save them from Shiv Sena is another matter. It probably didn't save very many people from the massacres in Gujarat.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 December 2005 12:02 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As for the comparisons with Palestine, even Pakistanis are sometimes more emotionally partisan about Palestine than they are about Kashmir. The only Indian Muslims who would resent the emphasis on Palestine would be those who defensively blame Pakistan for everything. Certainly no Pakistani denies the incredible importance of the Palestinian conflict in the Muslim world. They're more likely to see Palestine and Kashmir as being "of a piece". Both instances of the Global Conspiracy Against Islam.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 20 December 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course. But I'd be grateful for any contribution by Mandos or others with actual knowledge of the 150,000,000 Muslims in India.

Geez, he must have a heck of a time sending out Christmas cards.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 December 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Ouch.

I was hoping my (sincere) comment about you being one of the voices of reason in this forum would soften the blow a bit.

And to be clear - I really do welcome you to come back any time and join the discussions here again. I see your point about JPJ's post, but I don't think he was even implying that people are being anti-semitic by focusing on Israel - he was just saying that he thinks a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to it.

He may be right - however, my point was that Israeli advocates who claim that should also look at their own posting patterns on babble and perhaps see why this is so. It's rather enlightening to look at various ME forum regulars' last 50 posts. If there is inordinate attention paid to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on babble and elsewhere, I think it's because people on BOTH sides of the conflict keep it front and centre. And that is certainly true on babble.

And I stand by my statement that generally those who complain the loudest in the ME forum about how there is undue focus on Israel and none on other countries are often the people who display the most monomania in their posting patterns.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 December 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Geez, he must have a heck of a time sending out Christmas cards.

Yes, that's right. I only know the ones I know. And they're almost all family.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 December 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now that we have had a bit of incite on precisly how the 150,000,000 Muslims of India feel about the Palestinian Nakba, perhaps we can hear more about how the 15,000 odd Christians of Port Hope feel about it from someone who is more familiar with that exotic and complex cultural tradition.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 20 December 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
The basic thinking is "Your support for Palestine, even your interest in Israel-Palestine, is (at least in part) motivated by anti-Semitism."

Certainly no one would think that of you, who has read anything you've ever written. Did someone actually accuse you of that? If someone accused me of anything comparable to anti-Semitism I wouldn't let them chase me away, I'd just ignore them.

Please come back.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 December 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Advice from an expert. skilled at ignoring any evidence wich does not fit with the predisposed world view. Silence, once again, on the work professional historians such as Benny Morris and Illan Pappe. Not even a recognition that an researched, evidenced professional counter-narrative exists.

[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 December 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 23 December 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It's always great when someone with deeper knowledge of a particular story volunteers to educate us.

Obviously no Babbler can be made to out themselves, but I was hoping some lurker with origins in Muslim India, previously unsure that anyone here really wanted to hear from them, would volunteer in just the way that Mandos has above. No one?

[ 23 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 December 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I see your point about JPJ's post, but I don't think he was even implying that people are being anti-semitic by focusing on Israel - he was just saying that he thinks a disproportionate amount of attention is paid to it.

I agree with you Michelle. One further point, it is possible that the pro-Israel crowd feel somewhat provoked (rightly or wrongly)and they do have passionately held views.

Also I dont think its all that fair to target those who prefer one particular thread be it the ME thread or the Feminism thread or whatever. Why are you just focusing on the ME pro-Israel types? Why wouldn't you do the same kind of research say in the Feminism thread to see if there are those who only post there? Why wouldnt you? Cuz it shouldnt matter. People should feel free to post where they want and respond how they want (within the parameters of the board itself)without feeling that there are "posting police" spying on their posting patterns.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 23 December 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
People should feel free to post where they want and respond how they want (within the parameters of the board itself)without feeling that there are "posting police" spying on their posting patterns.

You're completely ignoring the context in which the posting patterns even became an issue, i.e. that some of the people who have questioned why the Israel/Palestine conflict gets so much attention are the ones whose posting patterns suggest that it's the issue they themselves pay the most attention to.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 December 2005 08:50 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
But so what? And who exactly is doing this analysis? And who is interpreting the results? Is it possible that these posts are reactions as opposed to starting discussions?

I still hold that no one here should be patrolling threads and counting posts. It is in and of itself a provocation and a form of intimidation that could be seen as an attempt to limit posting.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 December 2005 10:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then you should remember that the next time anyone complains about babblers posting too much about Israel and not enough about any other country.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 23 December 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
I still hold that no one here should be patrolling threads and counting posts. It is in and of itself a provocation and a form of intimidation that could be seen as an attempt to limit posting.

I agree completely. That's the frickin' point!


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca