Pakistan’s Casual Antisemitism Problem and Israel

Source: Middle East Eye

Pakistan is a country that conveniently got rid of its Jews, among the most of its “non-Muslim” minority groups when it was created by the British to divide India on communal lines in 1947. The rationale behind the creation of the kind of conditions that made this exodus possible provides a hint to understand the passionate refusal to accept the idea of a country for the Jewish people.

While the socialist camp in the country, now greatly marginalized and suppressed, has been solidly fixed with the Palestinian cause, not even abandoning it when they resorted to the most brutal terrorist measures, it would be incorrect to attribute the more sinister causes underlying the opposition to Israel. That problem can only be understood if the casual Muslim antisemitism is understood, which shapes the imagination of common Pakistani citizens, as well as its nationalist conservatives, even among its elite. It is perhaps not an anomalous observation to find these tendencies in many of the supposed Muslim liberals and progressives.

Islamic eschatology heavily focuses on the negative role of the Jewish people, with an understanding that the Jewish Meshiach might be the character of Dajjal, or the Muslim antichrist. The Muslims and Christians are supposed to fight together under the returned Jesus Christ against this evil, eventually slaughtering all Jewish people. While Prophet Muhammad had concluded treaties with the Jews of Medina, he also ordered violent battles against them, such as the Battle of Khyber. Other than the Quranic decree in the verse 5:51 that warned against befriending Jews and Christians, there are countless traditions that reinforce the hate against Jews. According to one tradition, near the Day of Judgment, all Jews will be killed and if one tries to hide behind a tree, the tree will reveal, that one is hiding behind it. Apart from these classical traditions that have built the bigotry over centuries, the political occupation of the Jewish people of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem solidified this bigotry on a religious level in modern times. Of course, occurrences such as Saladin engaging Maimonides to become a member of his courts did little to undo it. Now, killing the Zionist Jew is a common aspiration of righteously Muslim zealots from Palestine to Bangladesh. Except that a majority, fortunately making up not-so-righteous Muslims, would not bother themselves about killing or dying for Israel.

After all, it is no coincidence that denial of the Holocaust and admiration of Nazis and Adolf Hitler are rampant among most Pakistani Muslim fundamentalists. Casual antisemitism is a part of everyday conversation, jokes, and political discourse, in which every other evil and conspiracy in the world are attributed to the Jewish people. “Jew” and “Jewish agent” are popular slurs. Even Prime Minister Imran Khan, whose first wife is Jewish, has been frequently referred to as a “Jewish Agent” by the opposition, especially Islamist Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman.

This might not necessarily be the case with all of Pakistan’s progressive left and liberals. However, their support of Pakistan’s foreign policy stance toward Israel certainly suggests such tendencies. Considering the socialist leaning of the Arab Republics at odds with Israel, other than the Kingdoms tied with the bonds of Islamic Brotherhood, Pakistani Muslim socialists never felt the need to move over to Israel. But while there has been contemplation in recent years, the chances of that happening have been very slim. But to be fair, they have never been instrumental in forming Pakistan’s foreign policy, except under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s probably. But about Israel, there is an almost unanimous agreement among progressive liberals, conservative nationalists, and Islamists.

Antisemitism lies at the very heart of the foreign policy of Pakistan, as it has been the main driver of those of most of the Arab nations over the last seven decades. This also made Pakistan’s foreign policy slightly paradoxical, as the Islamic Republic enrolled itself solidly into the American camp, like Israel, during the Cold War Years. With the rumors of President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sending pilots to fly Syrian jets against Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it culminated to a new scale. However, after Bhutto’s assassination by the Pakistani state, General Zia-ul-Haq, the new dictator had to find himself with the awkwardness of using Israeli manufactured weapons during the Afghan-Soviet War in the 1980s. His policy of greater Islamization and Jihadi narrative would also be in direct contradiction of an endorsement of Israel as a possible ally. Even though he should not have found the contradiction particularly troubling as he was the general the Kingdom of Jordan had imported to massacre Palestinian refugees in the middle of the Black September terrorism controversy. Interestingly, Pakistan has arguably the blood of more Palestinians on its hands than Israelis for all its moralistic somersaults.

Pakistan maintains that it will not recognize the existence of the State of Israel until the two-state solution is reached. While Pakistan recognizes Palestine as a member of the United Nations, it does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, contradicting its commitment to accept a “two-state solution.” There is no two-state solution with the acceptance of Israel. It also includes the unrealistic demand of Israel moving back to the pre-1967 borders, especially when the talks at hand are about discontinuing the annexation of the West Bank. Pakistan hypocritically continues to insist that its refusal to recognize Israel is a “moral stance,” while it has established deep diplomatic relations with countries with arguably far worse offenses against humanity such as China as far as their treatment of the Uighur Muslims and the Tibet issue is concerned. Pakistan’s own treatment of the tribal Pashtun and Baloch people in their native territory is also not very different from the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

The casual antisemitism of Pakistanis manifests into apologies of its supposed intellectuals. Each time the deep state or other more conservative liberals bring up the thought of evaluating relationships with Israel, the abomination of recognizing Israel irritates and offends them greatly. The impunity with which hate is spewed against Israel makes the antisemitism very hard to hide. While it is a disgrace that such opinions have been normalized to this degree, seeing anti-Israel protests chanting “Death to Israel” by Jamaat-e-Islami affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious parties make those comments come across as an enlightened narrative. In a country sandwiched between Hezbollah-like Islamist parties and BDS warriors, Pakistani liberals who support Zionism indeed have an uphill task at hand.

The reason I am writing about this is that these days the talks of Pakistan reconsidering its diplomatic stance have been revived in Pakistani media by pro-military journalists following recognition of Israel by UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan. Normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is also expected. These pro-military journalists usually condemn the civilian opposition and dissidents by using tropes such as “agents of RAW and MOSSAD” and assign labels such as patriots and traitors on air. Certainly, the military establishment is behind them speaking so openly about possible relations with Israel as an anti-establishment civilian would immediately be condemned as a traitor for doing so. The military probably tests the waters of public sentiment every now and then about the issue to see how far they can go after the Israeli media recently reported a Pakistani army plane landing in Jordan where the military officials were rumored to have met Israeli officials. But what the Pakistani military does not realize that for such a reversal, it would have to undo its own mess of hypocrisy.

This has been the greatest problem with the Pakistani military in the first place, and one that caused a headache for even Republican administrations that did not mind a military dictatorship in Pakistan as long as it served their strategic goals. The Pakistani military has not favored Pakistan to be a secular nation and has instead been using both religious fundamentalists’ and terrorists for manipulating both domestic and foreign politics on both the eastern and western border. The launching of Tehreek Labaik Pakistan to influence the 2018 election being their latest dangerous masterstroke. They have remained central in building and propagating the Jihadi narrative that flourished the anti-Zionist and antisemitic sentiment over the years. They simply cannot turn the tide in a day, even if their propaganda mouthpieces such as Kamran Khan, Moeed Pirzada, Mubasher Lucman, and Ahmed Qureshi may try their best to convince the military-obsessed conservative nationalists.

Naturally, there was a massive backlash to the conservative nationalist efforts of reconsidering relations with Israel, both from Islamists and progressive liberals, who are passionately pro-Palestinian. Many of these Pakistani commentators downplay and almost make fun of the potential benefits of engaging with Israel with the exception of Mosharraf Zaidi. However, the Pakistani military might not wait for such irrational criticism to get into the way of the potential defense benefit for long. Israel currently has no reason to care for the balance of power in South Asia. Following the revival of diplomatic relations with Israel under Prime Minister Modi, The bonds between Israel and India against terrorism supported by Pakistan also became stronger following the Mumbai Attacks in 2008 in which 9 Jews, mostly Israelis, were killed. Since then, Pakistan has not made any effort to reach out either to the aggrieved parties or to mend its fences with Israel. Nevertheless, Pakistan reaching out to Israel can deescalate the current security situation with respect to the links between India and Israel.

All arguments aside, the most important reason to recognize Israel is simply to accept the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland. Unfortunately, many in Pakistan who support denying it would rather have Israel annihilated as a state the very next moment because they are against the very foundation of the State of Israel. If this isn’t antisemitism, then I don’t know what is. And in the modern context, indeed antizionism amounts to antisemitism. And no, this does not mean that criticizing Israel is being presented as antisemitism. Far from it. I am a critic of Israel myself, am against the Netanyahu regime and the Likud party, as well as against the brutal policies of Israel against the Palestinian people, especially the inhuman policy of dismantling the homes of suspected Palestinian militants and criminals. Israel is a democracy, albeit flawed, and without freedom of criticism, it will cease to be one. Although its current trajectory with the right wing’s continued influence is certainly not healthy.

Though, after recognizing Israel, all kinds of criticism, which includes closure of embassies, recalling of ambassadors and diplomatic staff, and a hundred other ways of protests could be employed to make Pakistan’s protest heard. With established bilateral relations, there will be greater gravity to Pakistan’s voice and more substantial diplomatic leverage that can be used to influence the Middle East crisis for the better rights of the Palestinian people. But is Pakistan sane and rational enough to understand that with a strong chokehold of Islamists in its society?

What is amusing is hearing Pakistani commentators calling Israel an “apartheid project” and throwing around terms such as “apartheid state.” It is certainly rich coming from people who have no problems with Pakistan’s status as a constitutional theocracy and pledging allegiance to a discriminatory constitution that has excommunicated an entire community and essentially offers state support of their killing. If there is a competition for being an apartheid state, surely Pakistan will score far greater than Israel ever could.

While antisemitism remains a major factor in determining Pakistan’s foreign policy toward Israel, it is surely the least of its moral problems.

France is Hated for Honoring Its Free Speech Martyrs

Source: France24

Charlie Hebdo killings are back again. This time these killings cannot just be blamed on Islamist terrorists, as was the case in 2017 when I last wrote about it. Now, a broader behavior among the Muslim community has been brought to light in wake of the recent incidents.

These incidents involved otherwise good citizens and practicing Muslims randomly erupting into dangerous acts of violence, either seriously injuring or ending up killing their victims. Unfortunately, most people attacked in these attacks hardly had anything to do with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. However, one person stood out and is hailed today as a Martyr for Free Speech, as titled by the French Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, much to the ire of the Muslim community in France and elsewhere.

Samuel Paty, the heroic teacher, who was simply killed for doing his job. Lecturing his history class on freedom of speech.

France honored this martyr of free speech, as well as the victims of a church attack in Nice. It was in honor of Samuel Paty that the French government projected the cartoon of the Prophet that he was killed for showing in the class on a municipal building. However, if you hear the criticism of France from the anti-Islamophobia Muslim critics, you might think that France routinely puts such pictures in public spaces to deliberately irritate the Muslim community, which is not the case.

Source: twitter/odishatv.in

Unfortunately, France is being hated today for honoring its free speech martyrs.

As a Pakistani, I could only wish that the Pakistani heads of state and government would have the sense to individually honor Mashaal Khan, our free speech martyr, like that. How is that possible in a country that only encourages its citizens to resort to violence in reaction to alleged blasphemies, and is now advocating such draconian blasphemy laws on an international level.

The brutal beheading of Samuel Paty shook the conscience of France as a nation. France reacted to this shocking threat promptly, but perhaps in the opinion of many, inadequately. Though in the opinion of many others, the Muslim citizens in France, who have been unnecessarily hounded by the French law enforcement.

Source: Reuters/ekathimerini

Considering the oppressive colonial history of France, especially targeting the Algerian and other Western African Muslims, this is a concern. However, Muslims from these communities are perhaps the most assimilated with the French Republican values. As evident by the recent stabbing and beheading attacks, most of the violence came from Muslim immigrants from other parts of the world such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Perhaps the most shocking of them all was a Pakistani Barelvi immigrant who was supposedly the follower of Khadim Hussain Rizvi of the extremist Tehreek Labaik Pakistan. This should have alarmed the Pakistani state establishment and the civil society, but instead of condemning the violence, Pakistan chose to double down on its rejection of French outrage on this onslaught of mindless violence.

The charge against France was led by the increasingly regressing European counterpart Turkey, which has been spiraling away from its secular democratic character of late. Turkey’s Islamist authoritarian President Erdogan insulted Macron to be in need of a mental checkup for his “anti-Muslim” policies, while Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan mimicked the “Caliph” by rejecting French reaction as Islamophobia.

There are two important pieces that have appeared in the Foreign Policy magazine. One by Benjamin Haddad that defended Macron’s policy from a liberal viewpoint, especially when the liberal and progressive criticism on his crackdown on Islamism has been the harshest, apart from the ones from the anti-Islamophobia bloc. The other by Mustafa Aykol, a Turkish scholar on Islam associated with the CATO Institute who primarily conceded Macron’s criticism that Islam , yet criticized French laïcité as “illiberal,” while endorsing the “Anglo-Saxon” secularism values as practiced in Britain and the United States. He argued that Macron’s France was not helping Muslims resolve that crisis.

Of course, I tend to agree more with Haddad’s assessment of the situation and the unjustified attacks that Macron is enduring for his rather brave reaction to the recent Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks. However, Aykol’s argument is not without its merits. It is important to recognize though that both frankly deal with the French political reality very differently. Aykol’s review, like that of many liberals and progressives, is more superficial, no matter how much such analyses may claim to account for France’s historical injustices with its largest minority, particularly in the context of the brutal colonial rule in Algeria and Western Africa. Haddad’s article did not ignore the French shortcomings in that area, neither did it omit the mention of Macron’s admission of France’s failure to address it.

However, acknowledging that an overwhelming, if not all French Muslims being peaceful and well-integrated with the Republican values is why Macron made the distinction between French Muslims and “Islamists.” His controversial proposals of policing school-going children, restricting homeschooling, have attracted new criticism, widely misreported by the anti-Islamophobia industry as discriminatory to Muslim children only. Frankly, such measures, which should include banning the Madrassah network, are more needed in Muslim majority countries such as Pakistan to curb radicalism.

We can dismiss France’s crackdown on Islamists or Muslims, depending on what you want to hear, as a political stunt for electoral survival of the third way liberals. But when will the intelligentsia of the Muslim community have a debate about the unacceptable and outrageous behavior of their fellow members of the faith in terms of not only endorsing but openly demanding beheading blasphemers and killing apostates? What is their view of defending curbing freedom of speech through intimidation when it is not discriminatory in the French culture at all.

What is more important here is the absence of liberal and progressive voices among Muslims to call for necessary reform. While they would disapprove of beliefs such as demands of beheading the blasphemers and killing the apostates in their private echo chambers, they are either too scared to or are simply disinterested in initiating a change or a reform. And when an external entity reacts to fill the void, they try their best to block those efforts in order to preserve the status quo of violent tantrums. They would indulge the victim complex of Western identity politics pursued by their representatives, but would not acknowledge preserving the secular, liberal, democratic values that allowed them the freedom to observe their faith without the fear of persecution and threat from the theological violence of their own faith.

Here, I must acknowledge that the onus of this reform does not lie as much on liberal and progressive Muslims in countries such as Pakistan, where they are themselves under constant threat from the very fundamentalism under discussion. As a matter of fact, many of the progressives and liberals, whose opinion in this regard is hard to separate from that of the position of Muslim Brotherhood, have little choice but to toe the line in order to dodge blasphemy allegations and attempts on their lives. The example of Mashaal Khan who was brutally murdered in his own university must be remembered to understand the gravity of the threat.

The biggest burden of responsibility lies on diaspora Muslim intellectuals who have not rejected their religious identity or even religiosity. Unfortunately, many former Muslims who denounce their religious identity in a Western democracy tend to react toward Islam in a hostile manner, perhaps as a reaction to the treatment they have received by the Muslim majority societies over the years. Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, they become increasingly conservative and passionate advocates for individual freedom, at times ignoring the sensitivities of the realities of what Muslim minorities have to endure in the West. The diaspora liberal and enlightened Muslims, who are enjoying the religious freedom in Western democracies and might not have the same freedom to practice their faith differently in Muslim majority societies can dare to initiate reform movements in Islam without the fear of their lives, unlike those in countries like Pakistan. Even if these reform movements start as survival mechanisms to better assimilate in the West, it would offer Islam a path to reform similar to Reform Judaism that flourished among the Jewish diaspora in Europe. Perhaps 2,000 years of life in a state like Israel may not have made it possible.

It is crucial to mention Aykol here because he is perhaps the most prominent of the intellectuals from the Muslim community that recognizes that Islam is indeed in crisis with a special mention of the blasphemy law in Pakistan. Apart from a history of writings advocating moderation in Islam, he recognizes the fact that it is important for Muslims to accept liberal values in a democracy and how an enlightened reform has been missing in Islam. He does not touch the Islamist terrorist threat issue in terms of French domestic security policy as much as and rightly so, because let’s face it, reactions to blasphemy against the Prophet brings a regressive reaction from most devoted Muslims, not just Islamist terrorists. He probably just does not see Muslims changing that reaction as a realistic path of reform. Though it must be recognized that the demands from the Western democracies to alter are also absurd and unacceptable.

Without this unaddressed crisis, the cycle of blasphemy and violent reaction will never stop.

If anything, Muslims globally should express their solidarity with France over #JeSuisSamuel and perhaps respect a gesture of tribute for once.