The Israeli Consul General in New York this morning on CNN made a flawed argument on CNN just minutes back to deny Israeli involvement in the shooting of Palestinian Christian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. I might write more about it later looking through his statements and claims and checking them for veracity and objectivity.
But now I wish to draw attention to one statement he made which is in some sure ways the essence of his argument which hence was neither historical, scientific, rational, objective, and humane. It was a faith and race-based statement. Israel has always pushed such rhetoric in the West before favourable Christian audiences.
But can a faith statement be embraced as a rational and historical statement in the public space? And what was that controversial statement?
The Israeli Ambassador claimed that Jerusalem is THE ETERNAL HOME of the Jewish people, implying that Jews have lived there and own the city before the beginning of time and will live there and own it after time has come to an end, and hence the Jews’ defense of it by all means is a legitimate right.
To me as a person of some learning, a rationalist and a humanist, this statement explains the essence of jihadist thought, i.e., the thought of a (racial and) religious struggle, which often finds expression in militant ways. In my view, there is no difference between the Israeli Consul General’s subtle defence of a Jewish socio-religious and racial armed struggle against the Palestinians and Islamic Jihad.
On the other hand, there are ancient minority communities in the Middle East, more ancient than the Jews – the Yazidis and Zoroastrians. The Zoroastrians are Persians, not Arabs, but are situated in the Middle East and have been through persecution similar to that which Jews have experienced in the region. There are likely to be plentiful Arab animists who quietly live even today with their heads bowed low because there is no one to defend them. These groups too are certain to have faith and culture-based ideas of ‘an eternal home.’ Would it be legitimate for them to start an armed struggle on that basis?
What is this idea of ‘an eternal home’? Does that kind of language and reasoning have currency in a pluralist, educated, secular world? Do educational streams such as biology and socio-cultural anthropology support the idea that any race and religion is eternal and has an eternal home here on earth? Are such ideas legitimate and real? And can people go to war against others on the grounds of such separatist thought?
Israel has gotten away with all such subtle injustices only because of a favourable powerful majority Christian West. But Israel should not be allowed to get away with such parochial, polarized, and unjust thought any further.
There is no eternal homeland of anybody that can legitimize their armed struggle to defend it. That is insensible, irrational, unintelligent, mean, parochial, divisive, and conflict generating. No cultural nationalist in any form, formation, colour, or region should be allowed to peddle such falsehoods.
The Israeli Consul General was wrong, parochial, and conflict-generating on CNN and I don’t know if anyone took note of it.
Comments