Palestine's Right to Live

Original Source: https://www.jeyamohan.in/193275/
11-Nov-2023

Dear J,
During the question-answer session after the speech at Canada, you seem to be siding with Hamas in the Israel-Hamas war. I would like to know your standpoint.

Ravichandran


Dear Ravi,

One of the basic problem of SriLankan Tamils is that they always converse only about politics unable to think of anything else - but 90% of such people have escaped from those political shores and have settled safe and sound in their business and work. Politics is nothing but their imaginary game.

Therefore, it contains only the exaggerated emotions. Many among them can be seen in a constant state of intensity (only within the social-media and stage). They think that if they can present themselves in a forum they would achieve an identity. They imagine that their compromises and downfalls would get evened out by blaming others.

I know people who have been playing this game for 30 years. Most of them have reached the age of 60. Their next generation doesn't suffer from this ailment. Therefore, this is just a psychological issue of immigrant SriLankan Tamils that would last for just another decade or two.

I went to Canada on a tourist visa. Hence I shouldn't speak politics. It could create legal problems not for me, rather for the organizers who invited me, especially in today's volatile situation between India and Canada; this could be quite dangerous. I had informed them beforehand and it was announced on stage as well. Still the first question was on politics.

I do not avoid any question. I have nothing to hide nor do I have anything to be evasive.

*

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, Gandhi's words are the prologue - "A separate land of Jews" is an idea from the past. It doesn't suit the modern world. There is no necessity to separate such a land and form a nation. There is absolutely no necessity to form a separate land for each ethnicity. Jews can consider all those nations that they emigrate to as their own. It is such flexible and inclusive idea that underlies nations where Jews reside.

A nation cannot be formed on the basis of a religion or ethnicity. Based on the geographic necessities, people that have to dwell together can form a nation. It is just an economic structure. Perhaps in future, a construct like a nation may not exist at all. Today's idea of a nation must be inclusive. No identity based on birth or beliefs can determine nationalism. It is against an individual's right to life.

Similar to Jews, if Gauls, Celts, Vikings and Normans start creating their own countries, then the world will be destroyed in ethnic wars. Israel is quite a wrong precedent - akin to nations formed on basis of religion. I would say the same to the concepts of Dravidian nation and Tamil nation.

*

There are ultimately only two realities that exists and I spoke briefly about them towards the end of my speech. The native living place of Palestinians have been occupied and they don't have another place to go. They are fighting to get their land back. Secondly, Israel has never adhered to the responsibilities expected of a democratic nation till now. Weapons have always been its path.

Israel has never abided by the political morality expected of a country. The agreements signed by a country's government must be abided by their successors. Reneging on them is against the concept of the government - especially towards foreign policy. If a country operates like that, should it still be called a country?

Israel has never abided by any of its agreements even a tad. Till today, it is functioning as the worst 'Unruly Nation'. India has endorsed only the landless Palestine and has vehemently condemned the Israeli occupation multiple times. Palestine is a nation endorsed by India. India has the collective responsibility in safeguarding the rights and the safety of Palestinians.

*

On the other hand, the game that gets played out in such crusades for rights is happening here too. One community fights for its rights and a leadership gets formed. As the leadership grows in strength and the struggle graduates towards success, some compromises ought to be made, because it can achieve success only by gaining support from various external sources. Every external support would claim a compromise.

In current scenario, defeating your enemy completely and hoisting our victory over it is not achievable; even to the hegemon America. Therefore who claim for zero compromises are nothing more than imbicilic suicide squads. They might lead an entire society towards suicide along with themselves.

Rights can be attained only through political processes. Even war should be waged only as part of that political process. It is just a ploy to force one's hand during negotiations. But, given the all round destruction in today's technological warfare, we can call it as an outdated ploy.

Therefore, nothing can be attained through war. At the same time, complete rights cannot be achieved only through political activities. Even with wars, rights are attained only via peace treaties. Every right is achieved via a compromise only. The compromises that we make is as important as the rights we achieve, because the other side also have rights.

But in today's scenario, when the leadership of a movement fighting for rights attains a common solution via political processes by conceding some compromises, there forms a group of extremists. They accuse the leadership of treachery and depict them as forsaking and betraying people. Fiery youngsters seeking adventures support these radicals.

Many times, people too support them. Because a movement's political leadership remains at the helms for a longer time. This leadership would've once portrayed the same extremism. But in due course, as they seek to gain international recognition, would have started making compromises. Therefore, people would've gotten disinterested. If a father's generation supports the leadership, his son's generation would support the extremists. Fiery speeches are always glamorous. If sacrifice is thrown in the mix, then the support multiplies for that side.

Consequently, the faction which brought in the peace treaty is defeated and the extremism rises. This faction now rejects the peace treaty attained via years of effort. In reality, the oppressors are also waiting for this. They too are looking at an opportunity to renege on the peace treaty. They discard the treaty citing the extremism. Now, it all goes back to square one.

This is what happened in Israel-Palestine conflict. When Yasser Arafat was defeated, the Palestine issue went back where it all started. Yasser Arafat succeeded through compromises. The nation thus formed must have been made economically robust akin to that of Israel. And in parallel, must have garnered more international support.

Once settled that way, things must have been gradually escalated claiming more rights. Successes must have been attained piece by piece. Change in international equations must have been considered so as to formulate political strategy to claim their rights. But Hamas, the extremist faction, defeated him.

In all rights movements, the oppressors follow this same template. You can see it in your place as well when there is a small demonstration by people. Eventually, when there is an agreement with the government or with the opposite party and when the success in sight, the extremist voices begin to rise and destroys the agreement. This has happened world over. India has successfully employed this strategy in Northeast, Punjab and Kashmir.

Even Hamas was initially supported by Israel. This was done to undermine Arafat. But he erred big time in politics by supporting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Hamas exploited that and nullified his efforts.

This current war is not between two nations. Hamas is not an organization with a recognized leadership. Nobody knows about its plans or the leadership with the ultimate responsibility;  given this reality, its not possible for a nation to support it. Even Iran hasn't expressed its support explicitly.

This war was started by Hamas. They have concealed themselves among the people knowing fully well what Israel will do next. When Israel invades Gaza, Hamas expected to garner support by exploiting the sympathy resulting from the loss of life and property. It tried to sacrifice its people's lives to attain its goals. That didn't happen with even the Arab world not extending any support. Pakistan and Afghanistan too didn't lend much support. The only eventuality was loss of Palestinians' lives.

Reason is quite clear. Today's world revolves around economics and trade. All countries are ruled by large corporates only. The reign of governments have all but ended by 2000s. Today's corporates are international, nationless financial governments. Hence, any nation will consider only its financial well-being. They are not led by language or race. Hamas didn't realize it.

The other side is Israel. Let us consider this scenario: If Pakistan intrudes into the Wagah border and inflicts destruction for a full day and that Indian army doesn't even venture into that zone. Will this be taken as "a possible scenario"? Israel's is one of the largest armies in the world. All citizens are trained in warfare. It is a nuclear power. Its Gaza border is quite volatile akin to our Wagah border. Are we to believe that they left it unguarded?

Tel Aviv is quite near to Gaza border. New Delhi too is quite close to Wagah border. Just a few hours drive. This distance is called "The longest route". Hamas had crossed that distance without any counteraction. Its a dangerous game played by Israel, sacrificing its people's lives. It created an convenient alibi before starting the war.

Such a ghastly terror attack and the brutal killing of common populace can unnerve any nation. It will create a sympathetic attitude towards Israel because every nation has encountered an equivalent terror attack on its soil. And each of those nation had garnered international support at those times.

So, today's situation is a brutal game being staged between a terrorist organization and an unruly nation by sacrificing their population and massacring people.

*

Playing one's own politics based on bias towards their caste, religion is the most despicable thing in such situation. I have read some articles hailing Hamas as "champions", "fighters" and "martyrs". What can be the mental make up of a person who exploits Palestinians' deaths to their own purposes of religious politics. Such articles can lead several thousands to immediately support the other side.

The other side: is the one where the whole Palestinian freedom struggle is painted as religious extremism; a perspective that seems to construe this situation as against India; the resultant antagonism; the attitude which exploits politics against Islam as support for Israel.

Both these sides are not interested about people's welfare. For them, war is a game like cricket. A thrill to keep away the usual boredom. All they want is for their side to win.

I consider the war that's being waged now and the children being murdered there to be a disgrace to the world civilization. The blame for that will forever be on Israel. Nothing can justify Israel's deeds. The fact that such an unruly country can survive is in itself against the long term world order. If, in future, it doesn't honor any environmental or digital accords, what can the world do?

Israel should be reigned in. UN sanctions must be imposed on it and must be maintained for a long term. Hamas, being a terrorist organization, need not have to be considered as a Palestinian leadership by any country. But a personality or an organization should be identified for the political representation of Palestine, similar to Yasser Arafat. They must not allowed to be destroyed by Israel.

It is the world's primary responsibility to safeguard Palestinian's right to live. There is no place here for any arguments on justice. Once the war is over, Israel must be investigated for war crimes, failing which, it would mean anyone can get away with doing anything.

This is my perspective. I am recording this as my views as a writer. But I am not an expert and I don't believe in the conversations of non-experts. Therefore I am not keen on a discussion. It is despicable that even this matter is being discussed in a manner similar to the entertainment show of Bigg boss.


References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigg_Boss