From: "Subarno Shyamroy" <shyamroy@poly.ncl.res.in>

Date: Sat Apr 6, 2002 5:12 am

Subject: Re: [Palestine] Arafatís War


In response to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5282 

Dear Friends,

I would first like to ask Mr. Jaffor Ullah if the facts of truth brought forth by Noam Chomski (link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5283 ) are "dishonest". I'm bound to ask this question, because prof. Chomski's "truths" are in sharp contrast with prof. Fouad Ajami's "truths". I urge Mr. Jaffor Ullah to give an explanation with his personal judgement. Now let me try to elaborate on why I personally think prof. Ajami's viewing of the issue is not straight (I won't like to make use of adjectives like honest or dishonest here). I shall like anybody and everybody to come forward with the right thing as and when I seem to be wrong. But I hope nobody will junk my arguments, drawn typically on the same lines as of prof. Chomsky's, simply by calling them of the "communist type".
 


1. Isn't this a fact that the jewish land is overlapping with the traditonal habitat of a lot of Palestinian Arabs? Well, say in the name of a gesture towards the jews who were ill-treated by the Nazis, let us suppose a chunk of the land has been given to them to make use as their fatherland, as described probably in some holibooks. This is a land where at some point of the past the Jews used to live, but later left behind in search of fortune all over the world. Now they started calling on their brothers all over the world to come back and stay here. Well, that's fine. We have given them a land of their own. But, by what ethical or political logic the Arab (or, Palestinian) inhabitants of that land should have to be evicted, in the name of maintaining the Jewish culture and spirit? That is the main issue. In this sub-continent also, we have created India and Pakistan. But once inside Pakistan, Jinnah declared and proclaimed the land to be equally dear and legitimate for anyone who live inside it. Whether or not Pakistan could maintain it or not is a different issue. The same is true for the Indian constitution. Yes, in spite of that, the exodus happened and people suffered. But we never think of glorifying that exodus even if some of us sometimes support the partition. Why then this same logic should not be applied to the fate of Palestininans who lived in the so called Jewish territory?

2. if the world doesn't recognize the Palestine so far as a sovereign state, then against which Israel is fighting a "war"? By what logic Israel's war should NOT be called an occupation?

3. If Israel, so far, has all its rigth to retain a military, then why not Palestine too? In the previous camp David effort, the Palestine was being denied that right? It was being made to become a pseudo-state parasitically dependent on Israel. It was supposed to be getting only internal police and no military to fight for its own. WHY? By what definition such a state of Palestine could really be called a state?
 

4. If Arafat is not given the power to fight, why is he, and how is he, caled upon to fight the suicide bombers of Palestine?

5. If occupation and neo-imperialism is the cause of suicide bombing, how can it imagined to vanish or subside without the occupation removed?

6. The basic question is whether the ocupation is legal or not? If not, why not a sequence like "retreat followed by no violence" instead of the reverse?

7. Why does a truly sovereign Palestinian state pose a threat to Israel's existence and how? And even if it does create a panic in Israeli mind, is that enough justification of keeping Palestinian people under occupation?

8.If Arafat is a criminal because he cannot reign in the bombers or even because he incites bombing directly or indirectly, why not successive Israeli governments who bomb and kill Palestinians? Is it just because Israel's military is legitimate and Palestine's is an "illegitimate militia"? Does legitimacy connect only to the formal structure of an army and not on how it operates and where it operates?

9. Why is it that revolt against occupation cannot involve force and violence if the occupation itself is allowed to occur by force and violence?

10. Why is occupation politically correct, when pertrated with the help of guns, while revolt is not?


I expect Mr. Jaffor Ullah or anybody else to give direct answers. If Mr. Jaffor Ullah has any way for forwarding my questions to prof. Ajami, i shall request him to oblige me by doing so.


Regards,

Subarno

==============================================================

Published at : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/5300