India’s Host of #SupportIsrael Posters Betray a Persecution Complex

From the Indian nationalist perspective, Israel is a tiny state – surrounded by hostile countries – but nonetheless a strong one, making it a good role model to emulate.

In all the media coverage surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict – or rather Israel’s relentless attacks on Gaza – what stands out most starkly in India is the overwhelming support among regular folk for Israel and its brutalities against Palestinians. For a while, hashtags like #IndiaSupportsIsrael and #IndiaStandsWithIsrael were ubiquitous on social media, which momentarily reminded me of the #IndiaSupportsCAA hashtag from a year before.

“To save your nation and its people from Radical Islamic terrorism is the fundamental right of every nation,” actress Kangana Ranaut wrote on her Instagram story (after her Twitter handle was blocked) to her over 7.5 million followers. The text’s backdrop showed an image of snipers in hot pursuit beaming lasers on targets. “India stands with Israel. Those who think terrorism should be replied with dharna (protest) and kadi ninda (censure) must learn from Israel,” she said.

Other posters were more virulent. “Gaza should be destroyed,” said one Twitter user; while another put out a cartoon image of an Indian Muslim man wailing, “Pray for Palestine!” as he stood above the corpses of Hazaras, Hindus, Balochs and Uighurs in Pakistan and China respectively. Beneath a video that showed Israeli settlers dancing while the Al Aqsa Mosque burned,[1] somebody wrote, “Jai Sriram. India with Israel. Go ahead and kill jihadis”.

A cartoon of an Indian Muslim man saying, “Pray for Palestine!” over the corpses of Hazaras, Hindus, Balochs and Uighurs in Pakistan and China. Photo: Twitter

Even if the above posts are brushed aside as the errant outpourings of a hysterical few, that there is a clear and concerted call to rally behind Israel among many Indians is unmistakable.

To be fair, the seeds for the love for Israel have been simmering in the Hindutva groundswell for many years. In 2016, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat said, “Israel was attacked by the surrounding Islamic countries on five occasions, but the Israeli people repulsed their aggressions and extended their boundaries due to the strong resolve to save [their] motherland.” But it is only now, legitimised by the rightwing atmosphere in both India and Israel, that vague murmurings have broken through our top-soil and arrived on our computer screens in open rage.

Also read: In Run up to Election, Banners of Modi-Netanyahu Make an Appearance in Israel

One internet poster attempted to answer why we should support Israel in an ostensibly logical way by spelling out cherry-picked news stories:

“1) In 2008, Israel sent 40 paramedics and forces during the Mumbai attacks. 2) India and Israel have very close cultural ties. Thousands of Israeli tourists visit India every year. 3) Israel was one of the few nations that did not condemn India’s nuclear tests in 1998. 4) After the US gave Pakistan Harpoon missiles, Israel sold India the Barak 1 missile, which can intercept Harpoon missiles. This restored balance between India and Pakistan. 5) In 1971 Israel quietly helped India in the war against Pakistan, supplying arms and weapons.”

What this post missed out on the military front was that in 1999 Israel also helped India in the Kargil war, and in 2001 the IDF also provided humanitarian relief following the Bhuj earthquake. On the economic side, trade between the two countries grew from USD 200 million in 1992 to USD 4.13 billion in 2016. In 2019, concomitant to Netanyahu and Modi’s friendship, Israel’s exports to India rose by 9%.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu walk during their visit to Gandhi Ashram in Ahmedabad, January 17, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Amit Dave/Files

But in none of the internet comments that I read was there even a hint of appreciation for the most basic history of the Levant. There was no mention, let alone an understanding of the over seven decades-long oppression of Palestinians by a largely occupying force. Nor was there any discussion about how the creation of the State of Israel was accompanied by the exodus of Palestinians from their ancestral homes. Needless to say, there is little knowledge among Indians about the current pulls and pressures of this most recent altercation in which one key factor is the forced eviction of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, a part of East Jerusalem, in order to make way for Jewish settlements deemed illegal under international law.

Few know that after more than fifty years of occupation, Gaza is now an area with more than 5,000 inhabitants per square kilometers that observers widely describe as the world’s largest open-air prison. While Israel has been accused of committing war crimes in Gaza, Hamas, the Islamic Resistant Movement of the region, classified by many countries as a terrorist organisation, has fired rockets from its small blockaded strip of land towards the Jewish state.

So why in this conflict do so many Indian nationalists consistently side with Israel? Where does our Israel adulation stem from? The obvious answer of course is the common and constant perceived threat of “Islamic Terrorism”. But this is only as true as it is easy.

An examination of the underpinnings of both nation states’ nationhoods bares deeper roots of India’s admiration of  Israel throwing light on curious connections and machinations that keep the edifice of our national psyche in place.

Also read: For Palestinians Under Israeli Occupation, Regard for India Runs Deep

A shared sense of persecution

Nationalists in both countries are beset by a sense of besiegement by antagonistic Muslim neighbours, within and without. Both nationalist Jews and Hindus, each who consider themselves the primogenitors of their land, harbour feelings of persecution. If Jews look back upon the Holocaust as their darkest and deathliest time which is never to be forgotten, many Hindus view the partition of the subcontinent, which is itself seen as the culmination of centuries of Muslim rule, as their personal rock-bottom.

Just as Jewish Israel is surrounded by Arab states, Hindu majority India is flanked by two Muslim states which, according to the Hindutva worldview, were carved out from a composite and sacred Indic whole. While it’s plain forgotten that it was the British who drew borders along religious lines in both places, for which India, Israel and Palestine continue to suffer enormously, and that prominent RSS leaders have themselves admired the Nazis who killed over six million Jews, as per the contemporary line of thinking it is the ever-present and persistent threat of ‘Islamic Terror’ that is paramount. It always overrides.

Given this mindset, it makes sense why in November 2019, the Indian Consul-General in New York, Sandeep Chakravorty, suggested to a gathering of Kashmiri Hindus that India should follow the Israeli model and build settlements in the Kashmir Valley to secure the return of Hindus.

A female demonstrator runs for cover during a protest where Palestinians demand the right to return to their homeland, at the Israel-Gaza border in the southern Gaza Strip. Photo: Reuters/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

“It wasn’t a coincidence,” Somdeep Sen argued in his September 2020 article in Foreign Policy, “that the Indian Consul General in New York was speaking to a gathering of Kashmiri Hindus. The return of exiled Hindus to Kashmir has long been central to the Hindu nationalist political agenda. And for the Consul General, Israel serves as a model for the way exiled people might reclaim their homeland. So, referring to the controversial revocation of Article 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution, Chakravorty described the move as an attempt to protect Hindu culture in Kashmir—not unlike the way Jewish people maintained their cultural identity in their years of exile”.

However, from an Indian nationalist perspective, there is another angle, as well. Israel is a tiny state but nonetheless a strong one. It is surrounded by hostile countries but there is still the perception that nobody can really mess with it. Importantly, Israel has the support of many in the west and so its transgressions, whatever they may be, often get overlooked. It is thus a good role model to emulate.

But as many commentators have noted, our allegiance wasn’t always tilted this way. Many Indians before, as even today, were pro-Palestine. Writing in his Harijan weekly in November 1938, Mahatma Gandhi himself said: “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense the England belongs to the English and France to the French”.

Also read: Indian Diplomat Wants ‘Israel Model’ in Kashmir, Sets Off Controversy

In fact, India voted alongside Arab states against the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.

A shared sense of the uniqueness of their sacred language

Tied to the point that nationalists in both countries believe that they have the original and rightful claim to their land is the shared feeling of a people inheriting an old and sacred language that brings them under one umbrella.

Hebrew, the liturgical tongue of the Jews, was revived and modernised towards the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century such that its use changed from the sacred language of Judaism to a spoken and written language used for daily life in Israel. This was done to foster ethno-nationalistic feelings certainly, but also out of necessity and practicality as a diversity of Jews had started arriving in Palestine and establishing themselves alongside the existing Jewish community in the region.

In the first Aliyah, or major wave of Zionist migration to Ottoman Palestine between 1881 and 1903, the Jews who came, estimated at 25-35000, were mostly from Eastern Europe and Yemen. In the second Aliyah, which took place between 1904 and 1914, a further approximately 35,000 migrants came mainly from the Russian Empire. It was imperative to have a lingua franca connecting these linguistically disparate but religiously united groups that would comprise the new state of Israel and Hebrew was ideal for the role.

Today Hebrew is Israel’s official language and over 5 million people speak it as their native tongue. Moreover, making Aliyah, ‘the act of going up—i.e. towards the Holy Land of Jerusalem’, one of the most basic tenets of Zionism, was enshrined into law on July 5, 1950. Section 1 of the Law of Return declares: “every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant].”

Likewise, in India, the desire to revive Sanskrit has been expressed many times. But “the demand which has periodically surfaced over the past century for instituting Sanskrit as the national language”, writes Sumathi Ramaswamy in her article ‘Sanskrit for the Nation‘, “has been couched in exactly the opposite terms [to Europe where the modern vernacular spoken by the majority of citizens became the national language]….Sanskrit deserves this status in the view of its advocates precisely because it is nobody’s mother tongue.”A stance that is remarkably similar to the status of Hebrew among Jews in the late 19th century.

She references an 1879 essay entitled “Should we call ourselves Aryan?”, in which A. Mittra wrote: “Is it not a painful, a shameful necessity that compels me, at the present moment to advocate the cause of Aryan learning in a foreign language? Should not Sanskrit rather than English be the universal medium of communication in the Aryan land?’

Also read: Indians Who Oppose Colonialism Should Support the Palestinian Cause

Fascinatingly, there is even a 167-page Sanskrit book titled Bhuvamanita Bhagavadbhasa, published in 2004, about Eliezer Ben-Yehuda himself, the chief driver behind the resurrection of Hebrew from a moribund sacred language into a modern one.

About this book, Eric Gurevitch writes in his EPW article in July 2017, “[It] invites the reader at the outset to draw several comparisons: between Hebrew and Sanskrit, India and Israel, Hindus and Jews. As an account about the “revival” of one language, namely Hebrew, popularly conceived of as ancient, sacred, liturgical, and recently “revived,” told in another language, namely Sanskrit, which is popularly conceived of as ancient, sacred, liturgical, dead and needing to be “revived,” Bhuvamanita Bhagavadbhasa itself serves as an image of the world it describes. It thus links the community that it hopes will change how Sanskrit is used in India to a community from a different nationalist moment. “There are many similar parts in the path of revival of Hebrew and Sanskrit,” the author Vishwasa wrote. “These parts become evident with the careful reading of this little story.””

A shared sense of being the original sons of the soil

A natural corollary to the above feelings of sharedness with Israel among Hindutva nationalists brings me to arguably the most important one: the overarching sense that India is the natural homeland for Hindus in much the same way Israel is the historical home of the Jews. It is exactly this sentiment which found legal expression in the passing of the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. Just as Israel’s Law of Return gave teeth to Israel’s Zionist basis so should Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) find its feet and force in India goes the Hindutva theory.

As Somdeep Sen argued in his September 2020 article on Foreign Policy, “It is no surprise then that StandWithUs, a pro-Israel advocacy organisation that publishes pamphlets in Hindi and the Israeli Consul General for South India Dana Kursh, reacted to India passing the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by saying: “India as a sovereign nation has the right in enacting the CAA … India’s sovereignty is to be respected and she knows how to protect her people.” India, for its part, displayed the extent of its alliance with Israel when in June 2019 it voted against granting Palestinians consultative status in the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council. Responding to the vote—a historic shift in India’s usual, pro-Palestine voting record at the U.N.— Netanyahu tweeted, “Thank you @NarendraModi, thank you India, for your support and for standing with Israel at the UN.”

It is a painful irony that if on the one hand it has been contended that Hindu nationalists are transforming India into an Israel-style ethnostate, the CAA which excludes Muslims refugees from acquiring Indian citizenship is itself, as has been noted, deeply reminiscent of the Nuremberg Laws whereby the Nazis revoked Reich citizenship for Jews.

Also read: Gaza, Apartheid Israel and the Last Stand of Settler Colonialism

The other smaller irony is that for all our admiration of Israel, when Netanyahu thanked 25 countries who supported Israel in this latest round of attacks India was conspicuously absent.  Still, perhaps it is a hark back to our history of solidarity with oppressed peoples, a Nehruvian idea, that led India to support the ‘just Palestine cause’ at the UN recently.

One internet poster reminded the others that India’s support for Palestine extends as far back as  October 1937, before Indian independence, when the Indian National Congress passed a resolution declaring its support for the Palestinian national movement. But her lone voice was drowned out by the others.

Photo: Twitter

Yet amid the din of rabble-rousers crying hoarse for Israel to crush the terrorists, a cartoon image caught my eye. It showed a man dying in hospital. Too sick to move and only able to breath with the support of oxygen, he nevertheless held up a placard saying #IndiastandswithIsrael.

It is a poignant lesson of our times that hate somehow finds oxygen even when our lungs can’t.

Siddharth Kapila is a lawyer-turned-writer presently working on a travel memoir on Hindu pilgrimage sites. 

Watch | Understanding the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad and ambassador Navtej Sarna outline the contours of the current conflict, its immediate antecedents and causes, as well as possible implications for peace and stability in the region.

In this episode, Dr Happymon Jacob interviews Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad (Retired Indian diplomat and author) and Ambassador Navtej Sarna (Retired Indian diplomat and India’s former ambassador to Israel and the US) about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. In a thorough discussion, the ambassadors outline the contours of the current conflict, its immediate antecedents and causes, as well as possible implications for peace and stability in the region.

Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad addresses the impasse in Israeli domestic politics and the implications of the recent events for PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s political fortunes. Ambassador Sarna discusses the international reaction to the conflict and explains President Biden’s approach towards the conflict. He also discusses the nuances of India’s response to the crisis in the open discussion at the UNSC and highlights the minute shifts in India’s policy towards peace in the region. In addition, Hamas, as a political entity, is discussed along with the intricacies of Palestinian politics. Both offer meaningful insights into the peace process going forward, discussing the feasibility of a two-state solution and much more.

The Israel-Palestine Issue Demands a Post-National Solution

There is a need to think beyond the two-state solution imaginatively and ensure Jews, Muslims and Christians live together in a truly post-national sense.

Once again, the Israelis have begun a relentless attack on Gaza, much in the way they did in 2014 during what was called Operation Protective Edge, which led to more than 2,100 Palestinian deaths, 500 of whom were children. This time around, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted quite predictably that Israel will continue with its campaign for “as long as necessary”. The immediate spark to the conflagration was the attempted eviction of Palestinian families from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood of East Jerusalem. The matter was up for hearing in the Israeli Supreme Court, but was deferred owing to the sensitivity of the situation. All this unfolded as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was drawing to a close and the date of the creation of the state of Israel, which Palestinians mark as the Nakba, was fast approaching.

It is important to step back in history to understand this seemingly never-ending crisis as it reveals the character of the central actors, especially the almost hyper-statehood of Israel and the failed statehood of the Palestinians. The seeds of the tragedy of Palestine were sown in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, of which it was a province. The foreseeable end of the Ottoman Empire was opportunity enough for the French and the British to arrive at the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 that carved up the areas of Lebanon and Syria for the French, with Palestine and Iraq going to the British. The British Mandate in Palestine formally began in 1922 and ended on May 14, 1948, with the declaration of Israeli statehood happening almost immediately.

In early November 1917, the year after the Sykes-Picot agreement, the British issued the famous Balfour Declaration, a letter written by British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour, committing the British government to the creation in Palestine of a “national home for the Jewish people”. For a document of such momentous historical consequences, the Balfour declaration was very short, just a few lines.

Also read: Gaza, Apartheid Israel and the Last Stand of Settler Colonialism

Significantly, along with this commitment to a national home for the Jewish people, it added “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”. Note the erasure of the Palestinians already inhabiting the land, as they are referred to and vaguely subsumed under “non-Jewish communities”. Further, it is merely their civil and religious rights that are referred to with no reference to their political rights.

A Palestinian man walks past the remains of a tower building which was destroyed by Israeli air strikes in Gaza City, May 13, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Suhaib Salem.

The British government’s sympathetic attitude towards the idea of a Jewish homeland resulted in an increase of immigration of Jews into Palestine over the decade of the 1920s and 1930s. There was nothing inherently wrong about this Jewish immigration. What changed in these two decades was the way the Jewish National Fund started to buy up large tracts of land to deprive and dispossess Palestinians of the land that they had been living and working on for generations. As a result of the role played by the Jewish National Fund, the movement of Jews into Palestine was quickly transformed from immigrant to settler, giving the incipient Israeli state the character of an aggressive settler-colonialism.

The realisation on the part of the Palestinians of the land being taken away from them resulted in the beginning of what can be called the first intifada of 1936. The word intifada means an uprising of a convulsive, almost desperate kind and there have been at least two further intifadas in Palestine that have arisen in December 1987 and September 2000.

There is speculation that the current crisis is likely to give rise to another intifada. The intifada of 1936 was followed the next year by the report of the Peel Commission in 1937, which recommended partition, but which was rejected by the Palestinians, and the British government ultimately found it unworkable. The intifada itself was brutally suppressed by the British, ending finally in 1939.

The partition plan that divided historic Ottoman Palestine between the Israelis and the Palestinians in 1947 was weighted against the Palestinians. It gave them 45% of the land, despite the Palestinian population presence being 65%. Israel was given a larger 55% of the land with a smaller Jewish population presence of 35%. By the year 1967 when the six-day war happened, Israel occupied 78% of the land, reducing Palestine to a mere 22% of the original historic Palestine. Even on this reduced 22% the Palestinians are hemmed and fenced in by Israeli military roads, check-posts and the ever-expanding Jewish settlements that are illegal and violate international law.

Thinking beyond the nation-state solution 

The Israel-Palestine issue is a modern problem whose roots lie very much in the 20th century and which has only been further aggravated in the 21st century. This is not an ancient theological battle between Abrahamic faiths, all of which lay claim to Jerusalem as a holy city.

The dispute is a modern one involving nationalism, racism, settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing. The problem very specifically lies in the nature of the Israeli state that refuses to accept clearly demarcated borders, resulting in turn in the ruling out of Palestinian statehood. A two-state solution, which has become something of a nostrum in frantic attempts at negotiated settlements, is essentially a non-starter if there is no clear agreement on where the borders of Israel end and where those of Palestine begin.

Obsessive Israeli references to Palestinian violence are nothing but a pretext to inflict disproportionate acts of violence on Palestinians. In his recent book Neither Settler, nor Native the Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani has suggested that the roots of the nation-state lie not in the central Europe of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, but in 1492 on the Iberian Peninsula where Jews, Christians and Muslims prospered and also inflicted suffering on each other.

Also read: Indians Who Oppose Colonialism Should Support the Palestinian Cause

The supplanting of Moorish rule in 1492 led to the expulsion of both Jewish and Muslim populations from the Iberian Peninsula, many of them fleeing to find some semblance of peace and flourishing in the millet system of the Ottoman Empire, the very same empire in whose decline was created the current Israel-Palestine dispute.

There is no reason why Jews, Muslims and Christians cannot learn the art of survival together in suffering in the 21st century. However, that would require for a start, thinking capaciously beyond the confines of the nation-state and thinking beyond the vicious ultra-nationalism on display in the current Israel-Palestine dispute, which leads people to overlook the suffering of others.

It would require a truly 21st century post-national solution, which also requires a resolute political will. Instead, what we have coming from the US and many European countries is the same inane, almost insane parroting of Israel’s “right to defend itself” in the face of Palestinian terrorism. Such unimaginative and craven responses are never going to lead to any kind of solution and will keep the region within the cycle of violence that has become a heartbreakingly familiar feature of this part of the world.

Amir Ali teaches at the Centre for Political Studies, JNU. 

Photo Essay: A Yom Kippur Meditation

The widely scattered houses of the Palestinian town of Al-Auja dot the slopes on either side of Wadi Auja. Three or four Bedouin families live in each such tiny point.

The widely scattered houses of the Palestinian town of Al-Auja dot the slopes on either side of Wadi Auja. Three or four Bedouin families live in each such tiny point.

Credit: Author provided

Credit: Margaret Olin

Dotting the slopes on either side of Wadi Auja are the widely scattered houses of Al-Auja. In most cases only three or four Bedouin families live in each such tiny point, some to the west, climbing the steep hill less than halfway up to the ridge that overlooks the Jordan Valley, others, like the homes of our shepherd friends today, further east, near the road to Jericho.

20170721-IMG_9770lvlcrv2crp2darker

Credit: Margaret Olin

The Al-Auja story is a long one; perhaps some day I’ll tell it in full. On April 21 this year, some 15 masked settlers from the Baladim outpost on the high ridge attacked with clubs and stones a group of Ta’ayush activists accompanying Palestinian shepherds to their grazing grounds. A moment of extreme violence: one activist with an open head wound, another with a broken arm, others seriously bruised. The police did nothing; but not long after this attack, which was filmed and widely publicised, the settlers were evacuated from the Baladim. We hear they may have come back.

20170721-IMG_9867crvlvl.jpg

Credit: Margaret Olin

A little to the south sits the ranch-settlement, entirely illegal even under Israeli law but, like all settlements, extraordinarily privileged, of a settler called Omer. He has been there for eleven years or so, and gathered around him is a group of young, reputedly violent toughs. Hundreds of verdant palm trees tower over the land he has stolen. For the last many years, because of this settlement and the arbitrary boundary it has set in place, the Bedouins of Al-Auja East have had no access to their lands.

Yom Kippur

Credit: Margaret Olin

Ta’ayush took them back across the invisible but fateful border. At first they hesitated, knowing full well that we couldn’t be with them every day and every hour, and that they were vulnerable to all the weapons and wounds that the Occupation can easily bring to bear upon them. Still, we told them that if we persist, together, in the end it’s likely that they will regain the lands, or most of them.

20170721-IMG_9833stp

Credit: Margaret Olin

And indeed the first few times we went with them and the sheep, it was like returning to Eden. Settlers, soldiers, police all turned up, all equally taken aback and bewildered. I saw the shepherds weep tears of joy: they had given up on these rocky, thorny hills.

20170728-IMG_9774crp

Credit: Margaret Olin

Then the normal business of the Occupation took over. Day after day the soldiers, egged on, perhaps actually given their orders, by the settlers, or maybe the orders came from higher up, would produce the devilish piece of paper with map attached declaring these lands a Closed Military Zone. The boundaries drawn on the map varied from day to day. The Occupation can’t allow a Palestinian shepherd to graze on his lands without a struggle. So we were driven off time after time, and each time we came back. It’s the usual story. We have been through it in many places. Every time they drive us off at gunpoint, it hurts.

20170728-img_9620-crp.jpg

Credit: Margaret Olin

Eventually, our promise will fulfill itself. There was a taste of it today. At dawn we set off with the herds, a long walk up and down the rocks, and three or four hours later we came home with them, the sheep full now of the thorns they love. The soldiers watched from a distance, not interfering. We spread out over the hills. The shepherds made tea. Apart from wind and sun and clouds, the white birds, the ravenous sheep chewing furiously, we heard only the silence of desert and stone. There is no sound in the world like the dusty sweetness of that silence. Two gentle donkeys made no sound.

20170728-IMG_9659crp

Credit: Margaret Olin

Strange, is it not, that what should be simple, natural, obvious, and right has to be fought for inch by inch? The Muslim theologians of the Middle Ages say that time is an infinite series of atomic moments called “nows,” aanaat. Each such temporal atom has to be created by Allah, moment by moment, an act of divine will and mercy. Each one is a miracle; life itself, the world and all that is in it, the mind and all that it holds, is thus entirely miraculous. Such was our morning in Al-Auja. One infinite atomic nows.

2017-09-29 07.41.25-crp

Al-Auja, September, 2017. Credit: David Shulman

On the way back we stopped for cold drinks and flat pitta spread with za’atar at our favorite café on the outskirts of Jericho. It’s the eve of Yom Kippur. I don’t know how it came up, maybe it had to do with the fact that Arik skipped the morning prayers to come to Al-Auja today. He, too, was wounded when the settlers attacked in April. Now, for whatever reason, he tells the famous story, shaped by I. L. Peretz, hero of my youth, of the rabbi of Nemirov who disappears each day before dawn. The days are the days before Yom Kippur when one says the prayers for forgiveness, slichot. His disciples, a little puzzled, decide he goes up to heaven. A skeptic and rationalist, someone like me, arrives in the village and scoffs at this pious dream; he hides under the rabbi’s bed and, when the rabbi gets up before dawn, the skeptic follows him into the forest. The rabbi carries an axe. He cuts firewood and carries it to the hut of a penniless widow. As he enters the hut, he recites the first prayer for forgiveness. As he puts the logs into the stove and lights the fire, he recites the next one. By the time the stove is fully ablaze, the prayers have been said in full. When the skeptic, who has watched this, next hears the disciples say the rabbi has gone up to heaven, the skeptic says: “If not higher.”

20170728-IMG_9761lvlcrvcrp3bal

Credit: Margaret Olin

Another one of those atomic nows.

20170721-IMG_9818crvlvlbal

Credit: Margaret Olin

I say, “I grew up on that story and others like it. That was when Jews were still Jews.”

20170721-IMG_9846crplvlcrvbal

Credit: Margaret Olin

Arik laughs. All of us laugh. The Palestinian serving hot pitta and za’attar has been listening in, even he laughs, at us or with us. Look what’s happened to the Jews. Except, I think to myself, this story is about Arik.

20170728-IMG_9685lvlsat

Credit: Margaret Olin

He asks me if I’m fasting tonight and tomorrow. No, I answer. I am going to Not Fast as an act of bearing witness, a moment of fleeting faith that god still exists.

20170721-IMG_9882lvlcrv2

Credit: Margaret Olin

David Shulman is an Indologist and an authority on the languages of India. A professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he is an activist in Ta’ayush, Arab-Jewish Partnership. His latest book is More Than Real: A History of the Imagination in South India, published in April 2015.

This was originally published by Touching Photographs.

Amid US Pressure, Palestinians Blacklisted at the UN

US ambassador Nikki Haley has said would block any appointment of a Palestinian official to a senior role at the UN because Washington “does not recognise Palestine” as an independent state.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks to the staff at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, May 23, 2017. Credit:Reuters

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks to the staff at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, May 23, 2017. Credit:Reuters

UN: When Secretary-General Antonio Guterres proposed the appointment of former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as UN’s Special Representative in Libya back in February, the proposal was shot down by US ambassador Nikki Haley, purely because he was a Palestinian.

And speaking in front of the US House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee in June, Haley went even further down the road when she indicated she would block any appointment of a Palestinian official to a senior role at the UN because Washington “does not recognise Palestine” as an independent state.

Suddenly, the Palestinians, for the first time, seem blacklisted – and declared political outcasts – in a world body where some of them held key posts in a bygone era.

Nadia Hijab, Executive Director of Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network, told IPS: “As the US administration appears to be steering a breakneck course towards a nuclear war with North Korea, it is little short of remarkable that its representative at the UN can find time to continue her vendetta against the Palestinian people while Israel, a serial violator of the international law the UN was created to uphold, is able not only to sit at the UN but to serve on key committees.”

Instead of blocking Palestinians from their rightful place in the community of nations, ambassador Haley would do better to push for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land conquered in 1967 and welcome a fully sovereign state of Palestine to the UN, said Hijab, who is of Palestinian origin, and once served as a senior staff member of the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

“I wonder if ambassador Haley is aware that, because Israel has colonised their country, Palestinians carry the nationality of many other countries around the world, including the United States. How far will she take her crusade against this beleaguered people?” she asked.

In most instances, Palestinians working at the United Nations have been nationals of UN member states, acquiring citizenship in countries such as UK, US, Jordan, Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, among others.

Since 2012, Palestine has been a “non-member observer state” at the UN – as is the Holy See (Vatican).

As one Arab diplomat speculated: “If Fayyad, who was educated at the University of Texas, was in fact also a US citizen, Haley may have blocked the appointment of an American, not a Palestinian.”

“But that’s a question only Fayyad can answer. If true, it will be an irony of ironies,” he added.

Guterres, who apparently relented to US pressure by stepping back on Fayyad’s appointment plucked up courage to tell reporters: “I think it was a serious mistake. I think that Mr Fayyad was the right person in the right place at the right time, and I think that those who will lose will be the Libyan people and the Libyan peace process.”

And, he rightly added: ““I believe that it is essential for everybody to understand that people serving the UN are serving in their personal capacities. They don’t represent a country or a government – they are citizens of the world representing the UN Charter and abiding by the UN Charter,” he said, pointedly directing his answer at Haley.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General who headed the Department of Public Information, told IPS that “traditionally, UN staffers need not renounce their loyalty to their home country, but they will have to take an oath of exclusive loyalty to the UN Secretary General which in effect places them as international civil servants, a once unique category recently, and systematically eroded.”

He pointed out that a number of Palestinians had served in the UN Secretariat since its early days, like Ismail Khalidi, a Saudi citizen of Palestinian origin and father of Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, and Shukri Salameh, who was of Palestinian origin and Chief of Staff Services in the Office of Personnel in the UN’s Department of Public Information.

Other senior officials later served with Jordanian, Lebanese, Saudi, Syrian and other papers in addition to those like Assistant Secretary-General Khaled Yassir, who headed the audit department of UNDP and who apparently carried a Palestinian “Stateless” card at the time, said Sanbar, who served under five different UN secretaries-general.

He said a number of US/UN officials were flexible on their own government’s position on politically-sensitive issues such as Under-Secretary General Joseph Vernon Reed – former Protocol Chief of US President George Herbert Walker Bush – when he attended a General Assembly meeting in Geneva with the participation of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was rebuffed in New York.

As to the approach of Secretary-General Guterres, Sanbar said: “I am not on the inside to comment; yet it seems not yet clear whether he is bowing to pressure or exercising extra care, while undertaking extensive travel, in making consensus senior appointments, including those for heads of departments, some of whom were given short term extensions and others who are yet to be firmly designated.”

“Perhaps by the middle of next year, an informed perception will be clearer. Inshallah!” he declared.

Admittedly, to be frank, he said, there were occasional cases where certain individuals tried to exploit the rightful plight of the Palestinian people to their personal advantage. Yet, generally, most international civil servants, made a special effort to demonstrate impressive performance,” said Sanbar.

Meanwhile, after a visit to Lebanon last week, Haley was gunning for the head of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Force Commander and Irish Major-General Michael Beary, and expressing regrets that he is not pursuing his mission of aggressively moving against the militant group, Hezbollah.

Asked for his comments, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “First of all, I would say that we obviously stand by the Force Commander in UNIFIL and we have full confidence in his work. I think the men and women of UNIFIL are doing work in a very delicate area. They report regularly and faithfully on what they, on what they see and on what they observe.”

“I understand there is a debate ongoing within member states regarding the renewal of the mandate of UNIFIL. We will let that debate play out. It’s in the hands of the Security Council. It’s done under their authority,” he added.

(IPS)