Gaza Conflict: Legitimacy of Israel

The latest Israeli offensive, Operation Protective Edge, was officially launched on July 8, 2014. As of July 18, more than 250 Palestinians have been killed, 76% of whom were civilians[1], while one Israeli was also killed in a mortar attack by Palestinians. The international community has reacted as it always does. The Arab world has reluctantly condemned the damage caused to the life and property of Gazans, Turkey and Iran have explicitly opposed the Israeli actions, while USA has expressed its clear support for the offensive and has reiterated Israel’s right to defend itself. This conflict between the positions of Iran and some other regional powers and that of USA and its allies regarding the Palestinian issue is often observed but rarely anyone realizes the cause behind it? Why is it that some countries, and not only the governments but also most of the people, have a one sided approach to the conflict. Of course it would be because a certain approach serves the interests of one group while another approach serves the interests of another. But apart from interests, there always has to be a normative basis for adopting different approaches. Governments can’t justify their stances and actions to their people regarding any conflict on the basis of interests alone. Because for them the politics is about interests, but for the people it is about ideals. 

In the case of USA and its allies, the theoretical basis for the one sided approach towards the Palestinian conflict is the assumption of legitimacy of the Israeli state and the opposite is true for their rivals in the Muslim world. While taking a position on the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians it is taken for granted by the West that Israel is a legitimate state. That’s where the recurring theme of ‘Israel’s right to defend itself’ comes from. This is the fundamental assumption to which the Iranian government and most of the people in the Muslim world disagree.

Political legitimacy is said to stem from the consent of people over whom a political entity exercises authority. For example, a government will be legitimate if it has the consent of the people who are being governed by it. Ideally, a legitimate authority is supposed to enforce its rule without the use of coercion. That is to say that people willingly submit to it. In case of Israel, the political legitimacy is usually concluded by affirming that the people of Israel submit to the authority of the state of Israel with their consent. The government is formed by popular vote and policies are devised by democratically elected representatives of the public. Thus, the state of Israel has the right to exercise authority over the land and people of Israel. Once the political legitimacy is established, the state also gets the right to defend itself.

However, while establishing the political legitimacy of Israel, a very important detail is usually overlooked. To understand it, one has to adopt the historical approach. Israel was established by the colonial Britain in Palestine. Talking of legitimacy, colonialism was itself illegitimate in the first place. The formation of the new state was made legal by the United Nations. The legitimacy of the UN is also debatable since it has five ‘permanent’ members which happen to have veto power. In terms of legitimacy based on consent of the people, the Palestinians never consented to any UN resolution depriving them of their homeland to form another state. It is widely accepted that there can be legal actions which are not legitimate. Apparently the UN partition plan that divided Palestine was one of them.

To make it simple, the land of Israel originally belongs to the Palestinians. So, the legitimacy of the state of Israel doesn't depend on the consent of Israelis. It instead depends on the consent of Palestinians. This point of view makes Israel an illegitimate entity as the Palestinians collectively oppose the existence of the Zionist entity in their homeland and thus it can be said that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. Creation of Israel was a deliberate political mistake by the West for which it has been paying with money in the form of aid to Israel, the Palestinians have been paying with their blood, and Israeli Jews have been paying with the constant threat to their existence.

1. Gaza Emergency Situation Report

Lessons from Iraq

There is a problem in global politics known as the Middle East problem; probably the most complex problem that there is. It all began after the colonial era, when the Western powers started evacuating the Middle East and divided it into nation states with future plans to create hegemony. In the beginning it worked out well but soon it was realized that the borders have been drawn quite randomly. Some people were divided between different states and some states were populated with different people. Everyone knew that the dormant volcano of the Middle East will erupt one day with dire humanitarian consequences. Throughout the last century the world powers kept a lid over the problem by suppressing uprisings with the help of brutal dictators and forging alliances with totalitarian regimes but it was evident that a permanent solution is needed. Some think that the problem was created by the imperialist powers deliberately in order to divide the people of Middle East so that they could be ruled easily. But evidently a stable Middle East is a win win for the World powers as well as the people of the region. The problem only is that to reach that stability, the region will have to go through a period of extreme instability and anarchy, and things could get even worse if the regional powers get drawn into the conflicts. 

Bernard Lewis is a British-American historian who specializes in the political history of the Middle East. In early 90s a plan to reshape the Middle Eastern states emerged and was attributed to him. The plan was to simply redraw the borders according to the ethnic and sectarian demographics of the Middle East. Amazingly, starting with the Arab Spring, the Middle East erupted along the same lines as proposed by the Bernard Lewis plan. The recent advances by Daesh or ISIS (now just IS) have already created the sketch of the Sunni state right in the middle of the map. Iraqi Kurds have also seized the opportunity and Peshmurga (the Kurdish armed force) has taken over Kirkuk after it was abandoned by the Iraqi army. It has been announced that the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) is going to hold a referendum to decide whether the Iraqi Kurds want to live with Iraq anymore. The question whether it’s all happening organically or is it being fertilized by the Western powers is largely speculative. Although it is a fact that USA and its allies provided support to the Syrian rebels, many of which later joined the Jihadist militias, especially ISIS. Yet there is no evidence of any direct involvement of the West in the current crisis in Iraq. Besides it was eventually going to happen. If West ever participated directly in creating this chaos, it was about a century ago when they drew the borders contrary to the demographic lines. 

As for Pakistan, the point of concern is its disintegration shown in the Bernard Lewis map. Since Iraq is going through that phase, Pakistan can learn some lessons from it to save itself from a similar fate. The population of Iraq is divided in three major groups. The Shi'ite who dominate the southern Iraq, the Sunnis who dominate the northwestern Iraq and the Kurds who dominate the north eastern regions of the country. Iraq is breaking up along these lines. Pakistan has been going through sectarian tensions for almost thirty years, but that’s not what is going to cause its disintegration. Sectarianism in Pakistan can cause instability and anarchy in the country which can in turn contribute to its disintegration, but it cannot directly cause it, mainly because of two reasons. Firstly, in Pakistan Shi'ite and Sunnis live side by side. Unlike Iraq, sectarian divisions in Pakistan don’t correlate with geopolitical divisions. Secondly, there is no class difference between the two sects. It’s not like Sunnis are generally more prosperous while Shi'ite are being neglected by the state. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shi'ite lived in separate regions and allegedly the current government was ignoring the Sunni population and thus the Sunni dominated areas were reportedly less prosperous than the south. So, it’s not entirely about sectarianism, it is also about class difference. 

However, in the case of Pakistan, a similar picture as that of Iraq can be conceived by just substituting sects with ethnicity. The provinces of Pakistan are clearly divided along ethnic lines and unfortunately there exists a class difference between the provinces. Punjab is considered the most prosperous province while Baluchistan is considered the most neglected one. The situation in Iraq gives the Pakistanis an opportunity to learn from other’s mistakes. It is not practically possible to merge the ethnic demographics of the country. There would be no disintegration if people of all ethnic backgrounds live side by side, instead of living in different parts of the country. But that of course is far from possible. The only option left is to minimize the class difference between the provinces. If the Pakistani politicians are smarter than their Iraqi counterparts, then this should be their top priority. 

An Underlying Cause of Insurgency

The Pakistani government has finally decided to use force against the TTP in a full fledged military operation named “Zarb e Azb”. Fighter jets have been pounding the militant hideouts since the attack on Jinnah International Airport and ISPR claims that the Uzbek terrorists responsible for planning the attack have been killed in the air strikes. The operation is being backed by most of the political parties of the country, which is quite an achievement for the N-League led government.

TTP has issued a statement[1] denouncing the decision of the government and threatening retaliatory attacks. Aside from the usual threats and angry remarks, there was something very important that was said by the TTP spokesman. He exclusively threatened to attack the Punjab province and the Federal capital. He even went on to invite “all Baloch, Sindhis, Pashtuns and ‘Islam-loving’ Punjabis to unite” with them “to rid them of the clutches of the tyrants”. The meaning is self evident. He called upon all Sindhis, Baloch and Pashtuns but not ‘all’ Punjabis. Only ‘Islam-loving’ Punjabis. Neither did he threaten to attack all of the Pakistan. Instead he pointed out Islamabad and Punjab. This reveals the underlying provincial discrimination that has caused many troubles for the Pakistanis in the past. 

Religious extremism is usually blamed for the insurgency in Pakistan and it’s not entirely false. But another important factor is the dissatisfaction of the people of aforementioned provinces with the state. The statement of the TTP spokesman clearly indicates that the terrorists not only capitalize on the extremist views of many Pakistanis regarding religion, but also on their discontent with the state. Even religious extremism stems from illiteracy which has been caused by the neglect of Pakistani government in educating the people of underdeveloped areas. 

The Pakistani generals are doing their job. They are supposed to protect the country from any threat by the use of force. That’s what they are doing now and that’s what they have done in the past by successfully driving out terrorists from Swat valley and adjacent areas. But the real and long term solution of insurgency lies within the hands of the politicians. It is their job to keep the population satisfied. It is them who are responsible for the dissatisfaction of Sindhis, Baloch and Pashtuns. 

The military is confident that the operation will be successful. But the real success is not to eliminate the Taliban. The real success is to eliminate the provincial discrimination, which can only be achieved by the politicians. This however doesn’t mean that the operation against the terrorists shouldn’t be launched. It means that the military efforts should be supplemented by political efforts. Everyone knows that the Army is capable enough to conduct a successful military operation, but it’s also known that the Pakistani politicians are equally incompetent and dishonest. That’s what keeps Pakistan from staying stable in the long run.

[1] ‘We Will Burn Islamabad and Lahore’ ‹ Newsweek Pakistan

The Identity Crisis

More than sixty years have passed since the inception of Pakistan and a lot has happened since then. The country swayed between democracy and dictatorship, developed a nuclear arsenal, survived two major wars with the neighboring India and is still struggling through the war on terror. Pakistanis learnt many things too. They learnt that the cost of wars will always be paid from their pockets, that the world powers are their friends only till their interests are aligned with them, that democratic leaders and dictators can both somehow manage to get away with all the corruption and still come back to power. But what they have not learnt till now is the answer to the most basic question, “Who are we?”

Most of the people in the world link their nationality to ethnicity. For example, Saudi Arabians are the host of Arab tribes who have been inhabiting the deserts of central Arabia for centuries. Iranians are a multitude of ethnic groups which have dwelled in the region for hundreds of years and gradually consolidated into a nation. Same goes for Afghans, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turks etc. Pakistanis don’t fall into this group for multiple reasons. Firstly, they don’t comprise of a single ethnicity or miscible ethnicities. Each province of Pakistan is home to a different ethnic group having stark differences with other ethnic groups of the country. Secondly, many of them had not even been living in what is now Pakistan before the partition of the Indo-Pak Subcontinent. They migrated from the present day India to live in the newly formed state. Moreover, most of the ethnic groups found in Pakistan also dwell in India. For example, Punjab is divided between Pakistan and India and Punjabis live on both sides of the border. So, Pakistanis can’t define their nationalism on the basis of ethnicity.

Above mentioned scenario is that of a land which is turned into a country by the people inhabiting it. Another scenario is that of a people who become a nation by inhabiting a land. Canadians, for instance, don’t share common ethnic background. They even comprise of different races altogether. All they share is a common land. Unfortunately, Pakistanis cannot define their identity even on this model. Before the creation of Pakistan, the people of Pakistan and present day India inhabited a common land. If the land is supposed to define the Pakistani nationalism, then why was the Subcontinent partitioned in the first place?

The only grounds left for defining Pakistani nationalism is ideology. The Two Nation Theory is what made the present day Pakistanis break away from United India. But then arises the question whether the Two Nation Theory necessitates Pakistan to be an Islamic state, or can the theory remain intact while the country inches towards secularism? Or precedently, is the theory even plausible?

The idea that the Two Nation Theory is implausible is not new, but recently it has grown stronger in the minds of many Pakistanis who tend to adhere to the secular principles. The fact that most of the people who had experienced the events which defined the postulates of the Two Nation Theory are no longer alive, and the next generation was unable to grasp the concept of Muslim nationalism in the Subcontinent, contribute directly to the dissatisfaction of many Pakistanis with their national identity. Regardless, the reality is that Pakistan has been created, and debating over whether the theory on which it relied for its ideological foundation was plausible or not is now irrelevant. The events of 1947 cannot be undone. Living apart for half a century has surely turned the Pakistanis and Indians into two separate nations even if it was not so at the time of partition, and there is absolutely no chance of reunification, particularly because of the blood that has been spilt on both sides.

What difference then remains between the Pakistanis and Indians? Both shared a common land and both share common ethnic background. The only difference that remains is that of religion. Many have tried to negate this fact but its the only conclusion on which everyone will arrive after going through the history of Pakistan movement.   

The question whether the partition in the name of religion necessitates the establishment of an Islamic state for the Pakistanis can be debated over. There are two possibilities; either this country was created to be an Islamic state or a Muslim state. The term ‘Muslim state’ might be new for some people, but it simply means a state in which Muslims live in majority and can practice their religion freely without any un-Islamic or secular principles that might come in the way of their freedom of religious practice. It does not include the imposition of the Sharia by the government. On the other hand, an Islamic state is one in which every component of the state and the society is regulated by the Islamic principles. Regardless of this decision, which must be taken collectively by the people of Pakistan, the Pakistanis can only be defined as the Muslims of Subcontinent who chose to live in a separate state to practice their religion freely and openly, which was not possible in a Hindu dominant society.

Negotiations in Pakistan

The Global Jihad

Extremism has been a prevalent phenomenon in Pakistan for almost 30 years now. As a result, many terrorist organizations have emerged in the country. The most well-known and notorious of them being the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, abbreviated as TTP. Many people abhor it but many sympathize with it and support it. The sympathizers are usually fundamentalist Muslims who are of the view that the Taliban and their affiliates are struggling for a cause that forms the very basis of Islam; the establishment of an Islamic state.

Islam is probably the only religion that necessitates the establishment of an independent state with the religion as its constitution. Because unlike other faiths, Islam is an ideology and it encompasses every aspect of human life, from individual to the society. An overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars are in agreement that it is obligatory for Muslims to struggle for the establishment of an Islamic state if there is none. This is the concept that is nowadays the magnet that attracts Muslim devotees from all around the world towards organizations like TTP.

The concept has gone global, consolidating a number of different groups under its umbrella, giving birth to a worldwide movement for the establishment of an Islamic state, known as “the Global Jihad”. It’s not a single organization, nor is it an alliance of different organizations. It’s a phenomenon that has given a direction to various Islamist groups, many of which have in the past been lost without purpose and thus were on the verge of extinction. The apparent aim of the Global Jihad initially was to retaliate against the invading Western nations, but now the focus has shifted mainly towards acquiring a land first, where the fundamentalists can create a state and later on use it as a launchpad to wage a Jihad against the West.  Some groups, like “Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL)” have this concept embossed in their name. It can be said that this concept is nowadays the ideological backbone of the global Islamist movement.

There is, however, a hole in the theory that the terrorists have been using to provide an ideological basis to their actions.

Focusing on Pakistan, the general idea is that Taliban are attacking the country because it was founded in the name of Islam but has now drifted far away from it. The Taliban want to restore the country to its actual status; that of a proper Islamic state. Many Pakistanis are in fact in favor of making Pakistan an Islamic state. The difference only arises when it comes to the diversity in the interpretations of Sharia. Each group of Muslims prefers its own interpretation and thus there has been a lot of difficulty in bringing the constitution any closer to Sharia. There have been other obstacles as well, for example the dependence of Pakistan on Western powers which are clearly allergic to the interference of religion in politics. Taliban are thus supposed to be the reformers who have waged a Jihad to fulfil the fundamental obligation of Islam against the will of imperialist powers.

Islam tells its followers to take guidance from the Prophet of course. So, the method of establishing the Islamic state must have been somewhere among his actions as it is the most important duty of Muslims as an ‘Ummah’. And so it is. The Prophet had established the city state of Medina, which is the first ever Islamic state. Let’s take a look at how the Prophet created it. When the Prophet and a handful of his followers were persecuted and threatened in their hometown, Mecca, they migrated to Medina which was a thriving town North of Mecca. People of Medina were more open minded and there the Prophet was able to preach the nascent religion with more freedom and less hostility. Gradually the Prophet converted a vast majority of the population to Islam and subsequently those verses of Quran were revealed that contained the laws which required the Prophet to be in a governing position in order to enforce them. Thus a welfare state was established which had Allah’s revelations as its constitution and the Prophet as its leader.  Afterwards the people of Medina flourished like never before and their humble town became the birth place of a whole civilization.

Now, the aforementioned historical fact indicates two things:  

•        People were not forced to turn their city into an Islamic state.
•      Not a single person was killed in the process of establishment of the Islamic state.

Presumably there is no need to further elaborate the point, but still, are not the Global Jihad organizations totally working in the opposite direction?

According to South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), 18076 Pakistani civilians have been killed in terrorist violence in the past decade. It is not even comparable to the death toll of the citizens of Medina when the Prophet turned that city into an Islamic state, because that toll is zero.  Similarly, the terrorists are trying to force their interpretation of Sharia over a population that disagrees with them. This is again totally opposite to how the Prophet worked his way towards an Islamic state. So, the actions of the terrorists are not justifiable according to Islam unless the terrorist chief has more authority than the Prophet of Islam himself as it is the least that is required for claiming to be the savior of a religion while defying the ways of its Prophet. Insurgency for the creation of an Islamic state is in itself against Islam.

It can be seen that Muslims were not called for Jihad by Allah before they had acquired a state. That means, Jihad has to be sanctioned by the leader of an Islamic state. Waging Jihad for acquiring the state is a paradox. Jihad comes from the state, the state doesn’t come from Jihad. 

Spreading The Message

Many Muslims consider it very important to spread Islam around the globe. In Islamic terminology it is called Da’wah, which literally means “invitation”. Unlike Jihad, this concept can’t be easily misinterpreted to incorporate any kind of violence. It is simply to invite people to Islam by preaching them the Islamic concepts. But nowadays Muslims don’t have something which had been in the past very instrumental for Dawah.

Like any other Islamic concept, the standard methodology for preaching and spreading Islam is to be taken from the life of The Holy Prophet. The Prophet first preached Islam in Mecca where the nascent religion instantly turned up all the idol worshippers against him and after they made it hard for him to even live in his house, he left for Medina; a city with less violent and more considerate people. After preaching Islam for some time, The Prophet established the first Islamic state; the city state of Medina. It then became the base camp for missionaries who converted all the Arabian Peninsula to Islam. After the establishment of the Islamic state, Medina thrived as never before. It became strong enough to defend Muslims from Meccans and eventually strong enough to capture Mecca. People flourished under the Islamic system and soon there were left few people who lived a life of poverty. People enjoyed more freedom, justice was served equally to the rich and the poor and crime rates went down to almost nil. For the people who were preached the new religion in the deserts of Arabia, Medina used to be an inspiration. They were told about that city and how it had changed after the advent of Islam. This exactly is what Muslims lack nowadays; a successful example to show people how Islam works.  

Islam is not a typical religion; it’s a whole ideology that encompasses every aspect of human life. It has got certain part that is associated with the individual life of people, but it also has system and standards for the whole society. In this era, when people are told about the Islamic systems of government, economy, society etc. people often ask what good are these systems if they couldn’t improve the condition of even a single Muslim country. There are six countries which claim to be Islamic states and fifteen which have Islam as the national religion. None of them is capable of being an inspiration for a non-Muslim.  

Usually Muslims blame The Western nations of plundering their resources and interfering in their politics and describe these to be the reasons for the poor condition of the structure of their country and society. But blaming someone else for one’s own shortcomings is not something very noble. Though it is a fact that many Western governments have been involved in supporting dictators and interfering in the politics and society of the Muslim world, but that too is a fault of the Muslims who let it happen.

When a Muslim preacher says to a non-Muslim, “Let me tell you something that is better for you”, the non-Muslim might well ask, “Why hasn’t that thing been better for your own self?” Why those who claim their religion to be a perfect system for humanity are living in the worst conditions? The answer of course is that they’ve themselves betrayed their religion. It’s only a name that is being spoken of now; Islam has long been abandoned by its followers. Though it is very important to spread The Message around the globe, but at least equal efforts should be made to preach and revive Islam in the Muslim world. The Prophet did it by making himself an example, and then by making an exemplary society and state. So should be done by the Muslims of this era, if they care even a bit about their religion.