 |
| The state of Israel and the Israeli people were invented from scratch by the Zionist movement [GALLO/GETTY] |
It is hard to believe that anyone who defends Israel's legitimacy as a state would buy into former Speaker Newt Gingrich's argument that Palestine is an "invented nation"
"Civilizations, like the penis, rise and fall, and when the towers and the battlements crumble into the earth, they return to the embrace of the Great Mother." ~ William Irwin Thompson
The Lingam is the symbol of a very special part of the Hindu god Shiva's body. (Hint: It's his cock.) Within the trinity of Hinduism, Shiva is the god of destruction and change. How much of that destruction is wrought with his four arms and how much comes from his manhood? We leave that to the reader to decide.
In Hindu mythology, when Shiva is killed, the goddess Kali squats over his body, rips out and eats his organs, and then mounts his still erect manrod to complete the cycle of creation. It's also worth noting that in most Hindu art and temples, his "linga" is usually depicted without the rest of him, the disembodied member being worshiped all by itself:
Malay rights group Perkasa reminded today that Article 153 helped keep the country peaceful and that it should not be questioned after a Christian leader said it should be inclusive of all groups.
The group was responding to National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) chairman Reverend Dr Eu Hong Seng who said yesterday that the Federal Constitution’s Article 153 is akin to “bullying” if it only protects the rights of one group.
“The reverend needs to remember that Christians are able to practice their religion without worry in this country because of Article 153.
“This country is peaceful because of Article 153 which protects the rights of Bumiputras who are the majority in this country,” Perkasa Secretary-General Syed Hasan Syed Ali said in a statement.
Syed Hasan (picture)said the bloody race riots on May 13, 1969 happened because Article 153 was not exercised properly.
“Without Article 153, there will surely be tension and this issue has been considered by past leaders from difference races when they agreed to Article 153,” he said.
He also said the Christian leader should have focused on a healthy and appropriate speech and encouraged the people to live harmoniously instead of creating tension.
“This will never happen in a speech or in prayers for the Muslim during Aidilfitri or Aidiladha.
“The Muslims had never touched the Constitution,” he said.
He also said that either the reverend does not understand Article 153 or he had purposely questioned it to create tension, pointing out the law includes the Bumiputras besides the Malays, as well as those who are non-Muslim, including the Christians.
He said religious leaders should refrain from talking about sensitive issues.
“It is dangerous when a religious leader touch on an issue agreed upon when the country was formed. Everyone should hold on to the promise of the social contract.
“If one does not like the agreement made when the country was formed, then might as well do not be a citizen in this country. Find a better country than Malaysia,” he said.
Eu had also said the rights in any nation cannot be scrutinised in a vacuum.
The reverend said nation building must be collective and for it to work, it has to be inclusive of everybody’s rights, including the East and West Malaysians, Indians, Chinese, Orang Aslis, Malays, the Sikhs and indigenous people.
Eu pointed out that democracy used to mean elected representatives are there to serve the people.
It is hard to believe that anyone who defends Israel's legitimacy as a state would buy into former Speaker Newt Gingrich's argument that Palestine is an "invented nation".
The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people - Israel and the Israelis - from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible.
The founder of the Israeli state was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an assimilated Viennese writer who was convinced by the Dreyfus trial in France - and the horrendous right-wing anti-Semitism that resulted from it - that Jews had to get out of Europe.
In 1897, he wrote the book that would essentially inaugurate the Zionist movement. It was called Der Judenstaat(meaning "the Jews' state" or "the Jewish State"), which was his proposal for moving the Jews out of Europe and into their own country.
He didn't specify where the Jewish homeland should be. He was more concerned about quickly obtaining territory anywhere for Jews to seek refuge.
Later, he decided that Palestine made the most sense because that was where the Jewish people both began and exercised self-determination in ancient times, and where there already was a small minority of Jews. But he also spoke of finding a place in Africa or the Americas if Palestine was unavailable.
The reaction to Herzl's idea was primarily that he was a bit crazy. Jews committed to assimilation insisted that Jews were not a nation, but a religious faith. Their nationalities were French, German, Polish, Iraqi or American - not some imaginary Jewish nationality that had not existed for 1900 years.
The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people - Israel and the Israelis - from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible.
The founder of the Israeli state was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an assimilated Viennese writer who was convinced by the Dreyfus trial in France - and the horrendous right-wing anti-Semitism that resulted from it - that Jews had to get out of Europe.
In 1897, he wrote the book that would essentially inaugurate the Zionist movement. It was called Der Judenstaat(meaning "the Jews' state" or "the Jewish State"), which was his proposal for moving the Jews out of Europe and into their own country.
He didn't specify where the Jewish homeland should be. He was more concerned about quickly obtaining territory anywhere for Jews to seek refuge.
Later, he decided that Palestine made the most sense because that was where the Jewish people both began and exercised self-determination in ancient times, and where there already was a small minority of Jews. But he also spoke of finding a place in Africa or the Americas if Palestine was unavailable.
The reaction to Herzl's idea was primarily that he was a bit crazy. Jews committed to assimilation insisted that Jews were not a nation, but a religious faith. Their nationalities were French, German, Polish, Iraqi or American - not some imaginary Jewish nationality that had not existed for 1900 years.
100 years ago: 'just an idea'
As late as 1943, during the worst days of the Holocaust, the American Jewish Committee - which adhered to the assimilationist view - resigned from the body created by American Jews to respond to the Nazi catastrophe over its "demand for the eventual establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine".
Seventy-plus years later, it is impossible to argue that the Israeli nation is not as authentic and worthy of recognition as any in the world (more authentic than some, in fact).
The Hebrew language is spoken by millions of Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli culture is unique: Bearing little resemblance to any other in the world. In fact, diaspora Jews have as little in common with Israelis as African-Americans have with Africans.
Israelis are not just Jews who happen to live in Palestine, even though the concept of Israel-ness started just over a hundred years ago as nothing but an idea. They are Israelis, entitled to self-determination, peace and security in their own land.
And the Palestinians are every bit as much a nation. If the ultimate definition of authentic nationhood is continuous residence in a land for thousands of years, the Palestinian claim to nationhood is ironclad. They never left Palestine (except for those who either emigrated or became refugees after the establishment of Israel).
Those who deny that Palestinians have a nation base their case on two arguments, both of which are logically incoherent. The first is that Palestinians never exercised self-determination in Palestine; they were always governed by others from ancient times to the present day.
The answer to this is: So what?
As late as 1943, during the worst days of the Holocaust, the American Jewish Committee - which adhered to the assimilationist view - resigned from the body created by American Jews to respond to the Nazi catastrophe over its "demand for the eventual establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine".
Seventy-plus years later, it is impossible to argue that the Israeli nation is not as authentic and worthy of recognition as any in the world (more authentic than some, in fact).
The Hebrew language is spoken by millions of Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli culture is unique: Bearing little resemblance to any other in the world. In fact, diaspora Jews have as little in common with Israelis as African-Americans have with Africans.
Israelis are not just Jews who happen to live in Palestine, even though the concept of Israel-ness started just over a hundred years ago as nothing but an idea. They are Israelis, entitled to self-determination, peace and security in their own land.
And the Palestinians are every bit as much a nation. If the ultimate definition of authentic nationhood is continuous residence in a land for thousands of years, the Palestinian claim to nationhood is ironclad. They never left Palestine (except for those who either emigrated or became refugees after the establishment of Israel).
Those who deny that Palestinians have a nation base their case on two arguments, both of which are logically incoherent. The first is that Palestinians never exercised self-determination in Palestine; they were always governed by others from ancient times to the present day.
The answer to this is: So what?
What makes a people real?
Most nations in the world lacked self-determination for long periods of their history. The Polish nation existed between 1790 and 1918 even though the state was erased from the map - divided between Russia and Austro-Hungary. It achieved independence in 1918 only to again lose it to the Nazis, and then the Soviets from 1939 until 1989. Would anyone today argue that the Polish nation was invented?
The idea of it is ridiculous, especially when offered by Israelis or Americans (or Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians... ) whose national existence would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago.
The second argument is that Palestinians never thought of themselves as Palestinians until Jews started moving into their territory, that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Zionism.
Again, so what?
When European Jews docked in Jaffa, Palestine in the early immigration waves of the late 19th century, there were Arabs waiting at the port. When the Jews purchased land, it was Arabs who had to move out.
And if those Arabs didn't call themselves Palestinians until the Zionist movement began, neither did the Jews call themselves Israelis. Until 1948, they were just Jews. But each of the two peoples knew who they were and who the other was.
The bottom line is that today, the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation - and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred.
To put it simply, the first part of the phrase self-determination is the word self. Both nations have the absolute right to define themselves as two nations which, hopefully, will evolve into two states. The alternative is national catastrophe not for one nation, but for two.
But why would Newt Gingrich care about that?
The idea of it is ridiculous, especially when offered by Israelis or Americans (or Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians... ) whose national existence would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago.
The second argument is that Palestinians never thought of themselves as Palestinians until Jews started moving into their territory, that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Zionism.
Again, so what?
When European Jews docked in Jaffa, Palestine in the early immigration waves of the late 19th century, there were Arabs waiting at the port. When the Jews purchased land, it was Arabs who had to move out.
And if those Arabs didn't call themselves Palestinians until the Zionist movement began, neither did the Jews call themselves Israelis. Until 1948, they were just Jews. But each of the two peoples knew who they were and who the other was.
The bottom line is that today, the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation - and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred.
To put it simply, the first part of the phrase self-determination is the word self. Both nations have the absolute right to define themselves as two nations which, hopefully, will evolve into two states. The alternative is national catastrophe not for one nation, but for two.
But why would Newt Gingrich care about that?
A terribly Messy Kerismas for Umno
Umno is still trying to pin the blame for the bloody 13 May 1969 episode on the DAP (in other words, the Chinese). Notwithstanding widespread reports that machete-wielding, black-clad berserkers donning red headbands were brought in and out of Selangor in army and police field force lorries, there is no doubt that the authorities could have ended the violence within 48 hours - instead of allowing the carnage and tension to drag on for weeks - if they had had the political will to do so...
A few days ago a young friend shared with me his unease about the upcoming general election. "I have a gut feeling Pakatan Rakyat will win and Umno will stir up trouble," he said.
If he was hoping to get some reassurance from me that nothing so horrific could possibly happen, he would have been disappointed. My response was that the signs were clear - Umno knows it has reached the end of the line, but it refuses to get off the gravy train.
 |
| Fat man in a red suit not always Santa Claus! |
No need to go over soggy, rank-smelling ground. Umno's sins are legion, and an inordinate proportion were obviously perpetrated under Mahathir Mohamad's 22-year-tenure. Umno should have died and been buried in February 1988 - but Mahathir was way too ruthless and nipped in the bud an attempt by two former prime ministers to establish an "Umno Malaysia" without him.
It was all about the money then - and even more so now. When so much money is involved, the worst traits tend to emerge. Umno in general - and Najib Razak in particular - are in dire straits. They can see the bold graffiti on the wall: the younger, street-savvier generation of Malays are no longer inclined to be whipped into a mindless frenzy by issues of race, religion and royalty. They are far more interested in freedom and social justice.
Umno's support base has been reduced to just a small band of rowdies and bullies - many of them moonlighting as policemen and goons-for-hire. Even its rural voter base of FELDA settlers can no longer be taken for granted - their children are beginning to wake up to the fact that they have been systematically robbed by smooth-talking Umno warlords who claim to have the Malays' interests at heart.
Is the army behind Umno? It's safe to say that the top brass are behind Najib. As defence minister for two terms, Najib had ample opportunity to line the pockets of high-ranking officers and make sure their retirement benefits were well taken care of. However, if the army is called out in the event of a national emergency, the rank-and-file troops may be disinclined to open fire on multiracial crowds for fear of injuring their own friends and relatives.
 |
| Alice slays the Jabberwocky of race-based politics |
That was its greatest achievement. After that pivotal date, Malaysians are uniting against corruption, social injustice, and demanding their civil liberties. While Umno and its fascist offshoots Perkasa and Pekida remain mired in the ugly rhetoric of race, religion and royalty, everybody else has moved on.
So, even if Umno attempts to revive its May 13 scenario after it loses the next election, it can only send a few hundred rempit into the streets to create an atmosphere of tension. Nobody else will be provoked to join the fray. You can't start a full-scale "race riot" without participants. What can the rempit do except burn a few cars and overturn some trash cans?
Everyone who isn't still in a cultural trance or living beneath a coconut shell knows what sort of dirty tricks Umno is capable of and is unlikely to fall for any race-based sandiwara it attempts to stage, post GE13. Even if Umno's armed thugs manage to inflict injury on a few hapless bystanders - the rest of the population will take cover and refrain from retaliating. How long can a bunch of mindless thugs roam the empty streets before they tire of their aimless rampage?
 |
| The SupremeTransformer, 1Nazjib |
Without people going about their everyday business, everything grinds to a halt. This would be akin to a massivehartal (general strike) which some of us have been trying to organize - only this time the hartal would be thrust upon us by an evil and massively unpopular regime that has just lost an election. Well, if such a situation arises, it would only prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Umno/BN has lost its legitimacy - and even if it seizes this opportunity to arrest and imprison all Opposition leaders, activists and bloggers, it will only be signing its own death warrant.
So let's put it this way: should we continue voting Umno/BN just because we fear the dire consequences if we don't? Or should we pit our fearlessness against Umno/BN's fear?
I'm willing to concede that we may have to embark on a national reconciliation exercise - the way it was done in South Africa during the tenure of F.W. de Klerk, when many police officers received formal pardons in exchange for their confessions and corrupt ministers were let off if they agreed to return a fair percentage of their ill-gotten gains to the national treasury.
CHEERS, FOLKS! HERE'S TO A BRAND NEW BEGINNING IN 2012!
 |
| Cartoon by Edward Koren/New York Times |
No comments:
Post a Comment