The Train of the Palestinian State between the First and Final Stations

Opinion
Nabil Amr
Palestinian writer and politician
Sunday - 12 May 2024

Every country that was plagued by foreign occupation gained its independence through national struggle that sprung from its own land and nation and made the occupier’s continued presence unsustainable as the losses came to outweigh the gains.

This was and remains a law governing the relationship between nations and their occupiers, and it has never been broken at any time or place.

It is according to this standard that the Palestinians’ long and arduous journey to liberate themselves from occupation and achieve freedom and independence should be evaluated.

By any measure, the scale of the sacrifices made by the Palestinians - and with them the Arabs - in the 20th and 21st centuries have been immense. No one familiar with the history of the Palestinian national struggle needs us to teach them about these sacrifices in figures: the number of human lives lost, families displaced, individuals detained, and people who were disabled as a result of their injuries. The events unfolding in Gaza now are a model that speaks clearly to these sacrifices and their magnitude.

The Palestinian state train, the dream of all Palestinians and their Arab and other supporters around the world, has not moved from the very first station: the homeland. This station, where numerous sacrifices were made and immense losses were incurred, should be viewed objectively and dispassionately if we are to understand the facts as they are and identify the obstacles preventing the train from taking off as it should.

This territory and the Palestinians living on it, as well as their countrymen in the diaspora, lack a basic and crucial requisite to be effective, national unity, which provides solid ground for national struggles. Indeed, the latter requires consensus on a single program, crystallization in a single institution, and common leadership.

This grave shortcoming is the reason for the train’s failure to depart from the first station. As long as this issue remains unaddressed in a manner that ensures the unity, coherence, and integration of efforts, the prospect of reaching a final resolution will remain far-fetched. It also creates complex challenges due to the significant influence of power that holds the key.

Before and since the Gaza war, the United Nations, especially the General Assembly, has embodied what we like to call the international community which is the fairest venue for addressing the Palestinian question and ensuring the inalienable political rights of the Palestinian people. It has supported the Palestinians’ right of return, self-determination, and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on all the territory occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

It is also the venue that has issued crucial resolutions regarding Palestinian refugees. In fact, the United States, with all its power, has found itself isolated in the General Assembly. Meanwhile, every vote has left its darling Israel seeming ostracized, isolated, and defeated.

The UN has a perverse structure and illogical rules. The majority, no matter how overwhelming, is of no significance because the smaller body, the Security Council, has the final say through the veto. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it seemed as though the veto was put into the bylaws of the UN so that the US could use it against the Palestinians and any resolution that might harm Israeli interests and offer something positive to the Palestinians.

Nothing helps us imagine the Palestinian state train departing its first station to reach the last like the fact that a popular global majority supports it, with the US and Israel standing on the opposite side, atop the rubble in Gaza and the bodies of its martyrs.

The train will not leave its point of departure unless this illogical flaw of division and fragmentation is resolved intelligently. Energy must not be squandered on infighting and preventing this falls solely on the Palestinians.

As for the final station, whose steel door remains firmly closed by the keyholder, its fate is in the hands of actors who could force the US and Israel to see things as they are. They must be made to see that the benefits of opening the door to a Palestinian state, enabling it to become a full member of the UN, and ensuring its establishment on its own land, outweigh the costs.

The Palestinian people and Arab nations have made more than enough sacrifices to liberate several polities and peoples. This obligates those who hold legitimate leadership or de facto authority to swiftly find a solution that removes the obstacles at the point of departure and facilitates the train's journey to its final destination.

All winds are blowing in favor of the emergence of a Palestinian state. However, the malfunction at the first station is strongly undermining this trajectory. What is happening on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank, along with recent events at the UN General Assembly, should be enough to compel leaders to address and resolve the issues at the first station.

Israel detains journalists on suspicions of working for Al Jazeera

JUST LIKE AUTHORITARIAN STATES

By Adam Schrader

MAY 12, 2024 


A photo of Al Jazeera's office as seen in a press release on the company's website. Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera

May 12 (UPI) -- Israel has detained journalists that authorities incorrectly believed were working for Al Jazeera, the news broadcaster banned from the country for its coverage of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war in Gaza.

The arrests were revealed by The New Arab, an English-language news website covering Middle Eastern affairs and based in London. It is the sister publication of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, an Arabic-language news outlet.

The journalists who were arrested were working for Al-Araby Al-Jadeed on Saturday night while covering protests in Tel Aviv calling for a hostage deal. According to Israeli journalist Oran Ziv, the crew was questioned after authorities saw live footage of the protests broadcasted by Al-Jazeera despite being banned.

"The Ministry of Communication didn't think about the option Al Jazeera Is probably using a live feed of one of the international agencies that are present in all the protests for a hostage deal, as they are banned from reporting from Israel," Ziv said on social media.

Netanyahu's regime decided last weekend to raid the Jerusalem offices of Al Jazeera and shutter the broadcaster, ironically just after World Press Freedom Day, a move critics blasted as a blow to press freedom.

Al Jazeera, in a news article covering its own closure, noted that it has "repeatedly rejected" accusations made by Netanyahu's government.

The role of China in maintaining the stability and balanced development of major-country relations

DR.NADIA HELMY
MAY 12, 2024

photo: Unsplash

As the world enters a new period of turbulence and change, relations between major powers are also undergoing new and profound changes. Here, China can play a pivotal role in maintaining the stability and balanced development of major-country relations, especially China is committed to developing friendly relations and cooperation with all countries in light of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. China pursues the process of resolutely safeguarding world peace and development, and better maintains world peace and development through its own development. On March 7, 2024, Member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Foreign Minister “Wang Yi” attended a foreign affairs press conference of the Second Session of the 14th National People’s Congress, where he answered questions from Chinese and foreign journalists about China’s foreign policy and international relations.

  Establishing a community with a shared future for humanity is a lofty goal pursued by Chinese diplomacy. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” has clarified more than once in his political speeches the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity in all its aspects on various occasions, and he took the initiative to apply the shared values of humanity to build an open, comprehensive, clean and beautiful world in which lasting peace, global security and common prosperity through consultation, cooperation and benefit for all. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” also proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, respectively, to advance common development, lasting security, and mutual benefit among civilizations for the human community at a deep level, and mobilize the efforts of all countries.

  China is willing as well to strengthen strategic dialogue with developed countries to increase mutual strategic trust, deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, properly address differences, and explore ways to establish and develop a new type of relations with major countries in the world in order to achieve steady, stable and healthy development of China’s relations with these countries.  It adheres to the policy of good neighborliness, partnership and developing friendly relations and cooperation with neighboring countries and other Asian countries.  China is also keen to conduct bilateral and regional cooperation with these countries and work with them to create a regional environment in which peace, stability, equality, mutual trust, and a spirit of cooperation and mutual benefit prevail.  With China’s constant endeavor to strengthen solidarity with the many developing countries, deepen traditional friendship and expand joint cooperation with them, we sincerely support developing countries to achieve independent development through economic aid, investments and other methods. Chinese President “Xi Jinping” stressed in his political discourses on protecting the rights, legitimate interests and common interests of developing countries. China is actively to participate in handling multilateral affairs and global issues, and China bears its required international responsibilities and plays a constructive role in making the international political and economic system more just and equitable.  As China continues to conduct communication and cooperation with other countries at the parliamentary, party and local levels and in the field of civil society and expand popular and cultural communication with abroad to increase mutual knowledge and friendship between the Chinese people and other peoples.

  The “major state diplomacy with Chinese characteristics” aims to maintain world peace and promote common development.  China calls for building a harmonious world of lasting peace and common prosperity, and works with other countries to achieve this as both a long-term goal and an urgent task.  In order to build a harmonious world, China made many efforts to achieve this goal.

   At the political level, the major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics focuses on the necessity of making the countries of the world treat each other on the basis of mutual respect and equal consultation, and work together to strengthen democracy in international relations.  All countries of the world, whether large or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community and deserve respect from the international community. Chinese state policy also diplomatically emphasizes that all countries must support the central role of the United Nations in international affairs, adhere to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, adhere to international law and recognized rules in international relations, and perpetuate the spirit of democracy, harmony, cooperation and win-win in international relations.  With China’s constant emphasis on the importance of letting the peoples of the world decide the affairs of their countries, while international affairs must be addressed through equal consultation between all countries of the world.  The right of states to participate in international affairs on an equal footing must be respected and protected.

  On the other hand, China links the interests of the Chinese people with the common interests of the peoples of the world, seeks to expand common interests with all parties, and works to form and develop common interest blocs with other countries and regions in various fields and at all levels.  China is committed to promoting the common interests of all mankind, and advocates that everyone should benefit from the fruits of the progress of human civilization. China also calls for the establishment of a new security concept based on trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation.

  Regarding enhancing cooperation-based security, China believes that wars and confrontations only lead to a spiral of violence and counter-violence, and that dialogue and negotiation represent the only correct and effective way to resolve disputes.  The countries of the world must strive to achieve peace, security, harmony and harmony through cooperation and opposition to the use of force or the threat of its use for the most trivial reasons.  Here, China bears international responsibility with a positive attitude.  China, as the most populous developing country in the world, believes that managing its affairs well is its most important responsibility towards the world.  China, as a responsible member of the international community, adheres to international law and recognized rules in international relations, and is keen to implement its required international obligations.  China takes a positive stance in reforming the international system, formulating international rules and addressing global issues, supporting development in other developing countries, and working to safeguard world peace and stability.  In light of the varying national circumstances and developmental stages of different countries, all countries must work to bear the required international responsibility in accordance with the principle of reconciliation between international responsibility, rights and national power, and play a constructive role in the international community according to their national capacity, in a way that achieves their interests and the common interests of humanity.  China will assume international responsibility as much as possible as its comprehensive national strength grows.

  China also adheres to the policy of good neighborliness and regional cooperation. China actively works to enhance friendship and cooperation with neighboring countries, and is keen to participate in building a harmonious Asia. China calls on the countries of the region to respect each other, enhance mutual trust, seek common visions while leaving differences aside, and settle differences and various problems, including disputes over territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, through negotiation, dialogue and friendly consultation, in a way that achieves peace and stability in the region. The countries of the region must enhance economic and trade exchange and joint cooperation, strengthen the process of regional economic integration, complement existing regional and sub-regional cooperation mechanisms while adopting an open attitude towards other regional cooperation initiatives, and welcome countries outside the region to play a constructive role in supporting peace and development in the region. China does not seek regional hegemony or establish spheres of influence, nor does it seek to exclude any country from regional cooperation. China’s development, prosperity and lasting stability do not constitute a threat to neighboring countries, but rather an opportunity for them.  China will, as always, adhere to the Asian spirit of self-reliance, insist on making further progress with creative ideas, openness, tolerance and cooperation. China is willing to remain a good neighbor, a close friend, and a distinguished partner to other Asian countries forever.

  Chinese wisdom promotes world peace, and China, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is committed to constructive participation in resolving international hot issues. Adhering to non-interference in internal affairs, as the Chinese side continues to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries concerned, and plays the role of mediation according to the needs and desires of the countries concerned, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. For a long time, the Chinese side has always led the voice of the countries of the Global South to search for development paths independently, and has also always supported the countries of the South, especially African and developing countries, to solve regional security problems in unity and solidarity.

  Accordingly, we understand that China’s economic growth and development play a major role in promoting global development and maintaining global economic stability.  China defends the issues of developing countries in international forums, and also plays active roles in important international groups such as the G20, the BRICS, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. All of this indicates China’s strong relationship with supporting the cause of development in the world. Chinese initiatives, such as the recently launched “Global Development Initiative” and the “Belt and Road Initiative”, reflect China’s contribution to global development and support for developing countries and emerging economies, thus contributing to achieving global stability.

Dr.Nadia Helmy

Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit

 

Can A Religion Other Than Islam Ever Be Accepted? – OpEd

 May 12, 2024 

By Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Has Islam been the one religion acceptable to God since the days of Prophet Muhammad? Does Islam claim to replace Christianity and Judaism, the way Christianity claimed (until recently) to have replaced Old Testament Judaism? 

One does frequently hear extremist, and even some non-extremist Muslims, quote the Qur’anic verse: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85) That sounds pretty exclusive.

But the Qur’an also states, and then repeats: “Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians; whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds; shall have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”  (Quran 2:62 & 5:69)

And the Qur’an goes even further, proclaiming that religious pluralism is the will of Allah. “If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (God’s plan is) to test (each group of) you in what He has given you: so compete in all virtues as in a race. The goal of you all is to (please) Allah who will show you on judgment day the truth of the matters which you dispute.” (Qur’an 5:48) 

This means that religious pluralism is the will of God. Thus, we will never know “the truth of the matters which you dispute” until judgement day. What we can know is who is the kindest and most charitable among us.Yet for centuries many believers in one God have chided and depreciated each other’s religions, and some believers have even resorted to forced conversions, expulsions, inquisitions and massacres to spread their faith even though monotheists all pray to the same God, and all prophets of monotheistic faiths are inspired by the same God.

The two Quran verses above (Quran 2:62 & 5:69) place Jews, Christians, and Sabians alongside Muslims; and say that any one among them who “believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”.

Although these two verses (Quran 2:62 & 5:69) seem to be completely contradictory to the first verse (Qur’an 3:85), and it is possible that one view abrogates the other, there is a much simpler explanation. 

There are two meanings for the word “Islam”. First, there is basic, fundamental, Islam (submission to God) which was the religion of all the prophets from Adam to Muhammad.

Second, there is the special and unique religion, or more accurate, way of life of Islam taught by Prophet Muhammad.

The two verses quoted above refer to basic, fundamental, Islam and not to the special and unique religion of Islam. In today’s terms; basic Islam should be spelled ‘islam’ without a capital letter ‘I’, and special and unique Islam should be spelled with a capital ‘I’. The same is true for Muslim, a member of a special and unique community, and ‘muslim’ referring to one who follows the fundamental “religion” of living in obedience to the commandments of the one God as taught by Moses, Jesus, or any other prophet of the one God.

Thus, “And whoever seeks a religion other than (monotheistic) islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85) includes Jews, Christians, and Sabians (whoever they are) but does not include atheists on one hand, and polytheists on the other hand. 

The Qur’an and Judaism by Reuven Firestone 2020, Oxford Handbook of Qur’anic Studies says: The Qur’an itself reflects a consciousness of association with Jewish and Christian scripture, thought, and practice. The Qur’an states: ‘Surely it (the Qur’an) is a communication sent down from the Lord of the worlds (God), which the trustworthy spirit (Gabriel) has brought down on your heart (Prophet Muḥammad) so you will be one of the warners (Prophets) in a clear Arabic tongue. It is most certainly in the scriptures (Torah and Gospels) of the ancients. Is it not a sign for them that the learned among the Children of Israel (Rabbis) know it?’ (26:192–7)

Religious pluralism as the will of God is very different from religious, moral or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgements. Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural or philosophical relativism. 

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in many areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self centered personal egoism type of humility. Religious pluralism also opposes a religious,  philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply. 

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, can not fully understand everything the way the infinite One does. This is true, for every human being, even for God’s  messengers themselves. When prophet Moses.”who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend” (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live.” (33:20)  

Similarly, in the Qur’an prophet Jesus admits to God, “You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself”. (7:116) In  the New Testament when prophet Jesus is asked, in private, by his disciples, “What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about all kinds of upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concludes by saying, “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father”. (24:36) 

A similar statement was made by prophet Muhammad when he was asked, “Tell me about the Hour”. Muhammad replied: “The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner.” (Muslim book 1:1&4)  Prophet Muhammad taught the general principle of epistemological humility to his followers when he said, “I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you.” (Qur’an 46:9)

The famous Qur’an verse (2:255)  called Ayat Al-Kursi, the “Throne verse” is known for its profound meaning and its inspiring message. Allah is well described, and we are informed that the knowledge of Allah is incomparable to our own humble efforts. The Throne verse begins: “Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Supporter of all.” and ends: “They shall not encompass any of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne/dominion extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving   them. For He is the Most High, the Supreme in glory.” And the very next verse states: “There shall be no compulsion in (acceptance of) the religion (Islam).” (2:256) because all humans have limited knowledge and no one should force anyone else to believe what is knowable only to Allah.

The Qur’an refers to Prophet Abraham as a community or a nation: “Abraham was a nation/community [Ummah]; dutiful to God, a monotheist [hanif], not one of the polytheists.” (16:120) If Prophet Abraham is an Ummah then fighting between the descendants of Prophets Ishmael and Isaac is a civil war and should always be avoided.

If all Arabs and Jews can live up to the ideal that ‘the descendants of Abraham’s sons should never make war against each other’ is the will of God; we will help fulfill the 2700 year old vision of Prophet Isaiah: “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt, and the Egyptians to Assyria. Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. On that day Israel  will join a three-party alliance with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing upon the heart. The LORD of Hosts will bless them saying, “Blessed be Egypt My people, Assyria My handiwork, and Israel My inheritance.”…(Isaiah 19:23-5)

Share

Rabbi Allen S. Maller

Allen Maller retired in 2006 after 39 years as Rabbi of Temple Akiba in Culver City, Calif. He is the author of an introduction to Jewish mysticism. God. Sex and Kabbalah and editor of the Tikun series of High Holy Day prayerbooks.

 

Modi’s Policies Give Fresh Lease Of Life To Dravidian Movement In Tamil Nadu – Analysis

Location of Tamil Nadu in India. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

 May 12, 2024  

By P. K. Balachandran

The North-South and Brahmin-non Brahmin divides have again come to the fore but Tamils hope that the INDIA alliance will blunt the BJP’s brutal centralization and divisive Hindu nationalism.       

The on-going elections to the Indian parliament are being fought in various States and Union Territories of the country on the basis of a multiplicity of issues varying from State to State. 

These issues could be caste, farmers’ problems, unemployment, oppressive taxation, political malfeasance, dictatorial tendencies, excessive centralization, financial discrimination against the better performing States, social justice and communalism, especially persecution of Muslims.    

In Tamil Nadu, where polling for all the 39 seats was held in the very first phase on April 19, the over-riding issue has been the danger posed to the time honoured values of the Dravidian movement which stands for federalism, secularism, equalitarianism and justice for the socially and educationally backward classes, Dalits and tribals.

All parties in Tamil Nadu, barring the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by Narendra Modi, are sworn to protect and foster the ideology of the Dravidian movement which is under an unprecedented threat posed by the BJP which is identified with brutal centralization and an extremist brand of political Hinduism encapsulated in the term Hindutva.   

Not all parties in Tamil Nadu brand themselves as “Dravidian”. The Congress and the Muslim League in Tamil Nadu are not Dravidian parties per se, but they are as committed to the ideals and goals of the Dravidian movement as the branded ones. In fact, no party which is not committed to the ideals of the Davidian movement can strike roots in Tamil Nadu’s soil.

Indeed, some outstanding leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League are considered as part of the Dravidian pantheon. The outstanding examples are K. Kamaraj of the Congress and Mohammad Ismail of the Muslim League. 

Kamaraj is hailed by the Dravidian movement as Perun Thalaivar or the Great Leader of the Tamils. In return, the Tamil Nadu Congress Committee recognises the founder of the Dravidian Movement Periyar E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker as one of its earliest State level Presidents, and has a portrait of his in the party office in Chennai. 

Mohammad Ismail is recognised as a votary of the Tamil language. In fact, in the Constituent Assembly in 1947, Ismail had advocated the recognition of Tamil as one of the official languages of the Union of India. After partition in 1947, Ismail became an ally of the Congress but later shifted to the Dravidian parties as these were more accommodative of the Muslims. The Tamil Nadu Muslim League has since been promoting the Muslim interest within the Dravidian ideological framework.

The BJP, on the other hand, is seen as the quintessential anti-thesis of Dravidian ideals, a representative of the upper caste and upper class Hindus. More precisely, it seen as representing the Brahmins, against whose historic hegemony the Dravidian movement has been fighting since the 1920s. No wonder then that today, the staunchest supporters of the BJP and the RSS both in Tamil Nadu and among Non-Resident Indian Tamils are Brahmins.   

While the Dravidian movement considers Sanatan Dharm as an ideological justification of the caste system, the Brahmins and North Indian Hindus see Sanatan Dharm as a set of liberal values even considering caste as division of labour rather than a system of invidious social system of discrimination based on birth. But the Dravidian movement thinks that this interpretation is utterly false.  

When the Tamil Nadu Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin said that Sanatan Dharm has to be eradicated, Hindus in the North and Brahmins in the South condemned him. The Congress party’s silence on the issue was exploited fully to show the Congress and the DMK as anti-Hindu. 

However such a portrayal did not wash in Tamil Nadu because Tamils do not identify Hinduism with the Sanatan Dharm. Tamil Hinduism, which is what is practiced in Tamil Nadu by the masses, is egalitarian, based as it is on the Bhakti cult. 

The North-South and Brahmin-non Brahmin divide came into the open when a leading Carnatic vocalist, T.M.Krishna, was given the Madras Music Academy’s top award of Sangeetha Kalanidhi and was to preside over the next annual session of the Academy. Through his  concerts, speeches and writings, Krishna had been castigating the caste biases in the Carnatic music echo-system. He has been including Islamic and Christian themes in his concerts. But the Brahmin lobby saw Carnatic music as Hindu music.     

While the non-Brahmins hailed Krishna’s efforts, the Brahmin lobby which has a stranglehold over the Music Academy, flew into a rage. Musicians Ranjani and Gayatri withdrew from the December Music concerts. They accusing Krishna of singing the praise of Dravidian movement’s founder, Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker, who, according to them, proposed the “genocide” of Brahmins repeatedly and referred to Brahmin women using “profanity”.

Other Brahmin artistes followed suit with condemnation of Krishna. North Indian BJP leaders and North Indian Youtubers interviewed the dissenters to portray Krishna, the DMK and even the Congress as anti-Hindu.

Issues such as Sanatan Dharm and T.N. Krishna were incubating in a climate of a Centre-State/North-South conflict over the devolution of finances from the Centre to the States. Tamil Nadu and other Southern States had been protesting against the Central government’s policy of punishing them for performing well on the population control and economic fronts. The finances devolved to them did not at all match their contribution to the Centre’s kitty, while it was the other way round in the case of the poorly performing North Indian States. Leaders of the Southern States even sat on a dharna in New Delhi to draw the attention of the Modi regime.   

The other issue that was bothering Tamil Nadu and other South Indian States was the proposal to redefine parliamentary constituencies based on a new population count. That could lead to the further dilution of the South’s representation in parliament as the Southern States’ populations are under control in contrast to those of the Northern States.

The explosion of Youtube news and discussion outlets have made all these issues, including the ones thrown up in the on-going elections, subjects of comment and debate involving the common man, experts and politicians. These programs have started getting lakhs if not millions of viewers of all classes as the smart phone is ubiquitous these days.

So far, these Youtube outlets have been encouraging only sober debate not slanging matches which are standard fare in the mainstream TV channels. 

What one observes in the new media in Tamil Nadu is the attempt to highlight the history and culture of the Tamils with the help of scholars and litterateurs. A new pride in being a Tamil is being instilled, pride which had dimmed in the balmy era of Gandhi and Nehru. The secular nationalism and the accommodative ethos of Gandhi and Nehru had eroded aggressive Tamil nationalism.

In the face of the challenge from the intolerant and oppressive nationalism based on Hindutva, promoted by Modi’s BJP, there is a revival of aggressive Tamil nationalism on the Youtube 

However, the new Tamil nationalism is not separatist. It is based on an explicitly stated hope that under the Congress-led INDIA alliance, the ideals of the Indian constitution will be reinstalled as the guiding star of modern India and that India’s unity will be re-established and strengthened. 

Hence the wish in Tamil Nadu that the DMK-led INDIA alliance will sweep the current elections winning all the 39 seats and help rein in or replace Modi’s BJP at the Centre.

P. K. Balachandran is a senior Indian journalist working in Sri Lanka for local and international media and has been writing on South Asian issues for the past 21 years

Tunisian lawyers call for strike over colleague’s arrest for sarcastic TV quip

A Tunisian lawyers association on Sunday called for a nationwide strike after hooded police raided Tunisia’s bar association headquarters and arrested a prominent lawyer as authorities escalated a broad government crackdown that has ensnared political dissidents, non-governmental organizations and Black migrants.


Issued on: 12/05/2024 

A demonstrator at a protest demanding the release of imprisoned lawyers, journalists, activists and opposition figures in Tunis, Tunisia, May 12, 2024.

 © Jihed Abidellaoui, Reuters

By: FRANCE 24

Sonia Dahmani, a prominent critic of the government, was arrested Saturday night after making sarcastic remarks about Tunisia on a local television programme last week and charged with distributing false information and disrupting public order.

She was the latest dissident to be charged under the country’s controversial Decree 54, an anti-fake news law that the government has used to pursue critics of President Kais Saied.

The Tunisian Lawyers Council on Sunday called for a nationwide general strike to be held by all lawyers.

Dahmani’s advocates had gathered at the bar association Saturday to protest a warrant for her arrest when police stormed the building.

FRANCE 24's French language reporter was live on air from Tunis when hooded police officials arrived at the bar association to arrest Dahmani.

Masked police forced FRANCE 24 to stop broadcasting after tearing "the camera from its tripod" and briefly detaining the cameraman.

FRANCE 24 has condemned the "brutal intervention by security forces that prevented journalists from practising their profession as they were covering a lawyers' protest for justice and in support of freedom of expression".

'What extraordinary country are we talking about?'

The incident was the latest in a series of arrests and investigations targeting activists, journalists and civil society groups critical of Saied and the government.

The move reinforces opponents' fears of an increasingly authoritarian government ahead of presidential elections expected later this year.

Dahmani was arrested after she said, on a TV show last week, that Tunisia is a country where life is not pleasant.

During a show on the Carthage Plus TV channel, Dahmani responded to another panelist's claim that sub-Saharan migrants were seeking to settle in Tunisia.

"What extraordinary country are we talking about?" she asked sarcastically.

She was commenting on a speech by Saied, who said there was a conspiracy to push thousands of undocumented migrants from Sub-Saharan countries to stay in Tunisia.
'Attack on the Tunisian legal profession'

The bar association has long carried “symbolic power” in Tunisia, so much so that authorities didn’t enter its doors under its pre-Arab Spring dictator, Fadoua Braham, a Tunisian lawyer, told The Associated Press.

“Today we are seeing hooded individuals using force and taking away a lawyer by force because of, quite simply, a matter of opinion,” she said, noting that those who arrested Dahmani were not clearly identifiable as law enforcement officers.

Other civil society organisations expressed concern and said the arrest contributed to an ongoing crackdown on human rights defenders, activists, journalists and opposition leaders.

The Tunisian General Labour Union, the country’s most powerful workers’ group, joined other civil society organizations, activists and lawyers at the bar association headquarters on Sunday.

The group said it “strongly condemns this blatant and unprecedented attack on the Tunisian legal profession and considers it one of the preludes to establishing a state of violations and tyranny, especially since it came after a wave of incitement, promotion of hate speech, division and treason.”

'Fake news' decree

Also on Saturday, broadcaster Borhen Bssais and political commentator Mourad Zeghidi were arrested for making critical comments, lawyer Ghazi Mrabet told AFP.

Mrabet said the judiciary on Sunday placed both under a "48-hour detention warrant and (they) will have to appear before an examining magistrate".

He said Zeghidi was being pursued "for a social media post in which he supported an arrested journalist", Mohamed Boughalleb. He was sentenced to six months in prison for defaming a public official and over "statements made during television shows since February".

Arrest warrants were issued for Bssais and Zeghidi for disseminating "false information... with the aim of defaming others or harming their reputation", Tunis court spokesperson Mohamed Zitouna told AFP.

Mrabet said Bssais was detained under Decree 54, which punishes the production and dissemination of "false news".

The law, signed by Saied in September 2022, has been criticised by journalists and opposition figures who say it has been used to stifle dissent. Since it came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted, according to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP, AP and Reuters)

Three Tunisian pundits arrested over critical remarks: lawyers

Since the 'false news' law came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted

| AFP |

Tunisian lawyers chant slogans during a protest at the bar association headquarters in Tunis. 

Photo: AFP

Tunisian authorities ordered Sunday the arrest of two political commentators over critical comments, a lawyer told AFP, a day after security forces stormed the bar association and took a third pundit into custody.

Sonia Dahmani, also a lawyer, was arrested late Saturday after criticising the state of Tunisia on television, her attorney Dalila Msaddek said in a Facebook post.

Msaddek said there was a "police attack" on the bar association headquarters in Tunis, with "lawyers assaulted and the abduction of colleague Sonia Dahmani to an unknown location".

Also on Saturday, broadcaster Borhen Bssais and political commentator Mourad Zeghidi were arrested for making critical comments, lawyer Ghazi Mrabet told AFP.

Mrabet said the judiciary on Sunday placed both under a "48-hour detention warrant and (they) will have to appear before an examining magistrate".

He said Zeghidi was being pursued "for a social media post in which he supported an arrested journalist", Mohamed Boughalleb. He was sentenced to six months in prison for defaming a public official and over "statements made during television shows since February".

Arrest warrants were issued for Bssais and Zeghidi for disseminating "false information... with the aim of defaming others or harming their reputation", Tunis court spokesperson Mohamed Zitouna told AFP.

Mrabet said Bssais was detained under Decree 54, which punishes the production and dissemination of "false news".

The law, signed by President Kais Saied in September 2022, has been criticised by journalists and opposition figures who say it has been used to stifle dissent.

Since it came into force, more than 60 journalists, lawyers and opposition figures have been prosecuted, according to the National Union of Tunisian Journalists.
'Extraordinary country?'

Dahmani was also arrested under Decree 54, media reported, saying she was detained while seeking safety at the bar association.

The event was filmed live by news channel France 24, which said masked police forced it to stop broadcasting, had "torn the camera from its tripod" and briefly detained the cameraman.

France 24 condemned what it called a "brutal intervention by security forces that prevented journalists from practising their profession as they were covering a lawyers' protest for justice and in support of freedom of expression".

The bar association condemned an "invasion of its headquarters and blatant aggression", demanded Dahmani's immediate release and announced a regional strike starting Monday.

Msaddek said Dahmani had been summoned to court on Friday to explain her remarks but refused to appear. A court then issued a warrant for her to be brought before the investigating judge.

Islam Hamza, another lawyer on Dahmani's defence team, confirmed her arrest to AFP.

Dahmani told journalists before being arrested that she refused to appear "without knowing the reasons for this summons".

On the Carthage Plus television channel on Tuesday, she responded to another pundit's claim that migrants from sub-Saharan African countries were seeking to settle in Tunisia.

"What extraordinary country are we talking about?" she asked sarcastically, triggering angry reactions from some social media users.
'Police state'

Tunisia is a key departure point for thousands of migrants who risk perilous Mediterranean crossings each year hoping for a better life in Europe.

But the situation of sub-Saharan African migrants in Tunisia has worsened, particularly since a Kais speech last year in which he painted "hordes of illegal migrants" as a demographic threat.

On Monday Saadia Mosbah, head of the Mnemty anti-racism association, was detained and investigated over money laundering, media reported.

Her arrest came just hours after Saied lashed out at organisations that defend migrant rights, calling their leaders "traitors and mercenaries".

Tunisian authorities have raided several encampments in recent weeks, tearing down tents and expelling migrants.

Saied was elected president in 2019 but has ruled by decree since he orchestrated a sweeping power grab in July 2021.

A demonstration on Sunday in Tunis, organised by the opposition National Salvation Front (NSF) coalition to demand "free and fair elections" by the end of the year, drew a crowd of some 300 people, AFP correspondents reported.

The protesters chanted "Stop the police state" and "Down, down with Kais Saied", they said.

Veteran politician and NSF co-founder Ahmed Nejib Chebbi condemned what he called a "freedom-killing system".

"All freedoms have been attacked. Today, it is absolute personal power which subjugates all of the instruments of state to stifle rights and freedoms."

Statehood in the Arab Levant Faces a Miserable Fate


Opinion
Hazem Saghieh
Sunday - 12 May 2024


Let us remember what happened in Beirut in 2002 for a moment. Despite over two decades having gone by, recalling this juncture remains useful for understanding the present. Not only has the past not truly passed, it has become more present and painful with time, and its meanings have become more transparent.

That year, during an Arab Summit, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, who would later become king, put forward what came to be known as the "Arab Peace Initiative.” The tragedy of 9/11 in the United States and the Second Intifada in Palestine were propelling a major shift in the "Middle East crisis" and its resolution.

The most prominent dimension of this initiative was its announcement that Arab states were prepared to recognize the State of Israel in exchange for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights it had taken from Syria.

Then Israeli Prime Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon prevented Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from traveling to Lebanon to attend the summit in which his cause would be discussed. For his part, Arafat complied with the decision for fear that if he went to Beirut, the Israelis would prevent him from returning to Ramallah.

In turn, Emile Lahoud, then President of Lebanon, who is known for being a subordinate of Damascus and Tehran, denied Arafat’s request to deliver a speech at the summit via satellite. The pretext for removing the speech from the conference's agenda was scandalous: "fears Israel would interfere and distort the speech."

What happened was even worse: Hamas carried out a terrorist attack in Netanya during the summit, which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Passover, resulting in the deaths of 30 Israeli civilians.

Sharon and his government found in the attack an opportunity to ignore the Beirut summit and avoid engaging with the offer it presented. Sharon’s dismissal of the summit was reinforced by the fact that it refused to address (let alone condemn) the terrorist operation because of pressure from Syria and rejectionist Arabs.

Nothing attests to the collusion of Israel and Iran in undermining Palestinian statehood and the notion of peace in general - albeit from a position of enmity - more compellingly than this incident. Mind you, the war against the Oslo Accords also spoke volumes about this same collusion: the Israeli right assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, and rejectionist Palestinian factions planted explosives among civilians.

In addition, we add nothing novel in mentioning what happened after the Hamas coup and takeover of Gaza in 2007, which left the Israeli right happy and reassured. It was thus impelled to come to the aid of Hamas and to bolster its authority financially, not necessarily out of love for Hamas but out of hatred for the prospect that any kind of Palestinian national structure could take shape.

Both Israel and Iran sought to destroy Palestinian statehood and prevent it from evolving. Tel Aviv believed that perpetuating the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip was crucial to achieving this end, while Tehran believed that nothing less than fragmenting the Arab Levant and preventing its stabilization into a system of statehood was necessary.

The birth of a Palestinian state leads to two undesirable outcomes:

On one hand, it deprives rejectionists of a useful flammable element, as well as proving that solving this obstinate problem is possible.

On the other hand, the creation of such a state would be a celebration of statehood and evidence of the state system's success in the Arab Levant. The reality, as many of our experiences have shown, is that the existence of a Palestinian state has become tied to the question of whether the state system is viable or absent and unachievable in the region.

Both sides, in any event, do not want the problem to be resolved, leaving it to remain a "cause." They prefer the project of promoting the turn towards militias that hinders the formation of states and spreads social decay.

Completing the picture, Assadist Syria saw itself as a partner in the Iranian effort to fragment the Levant and foster its militarization, provided that this fragmentation excluded Syria and allowed it to control the process. However, it soon fell into the hole it had dug for its "brothers" in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine. Thus, there was no longer any exception to this Levantine rule, and the Iranians and Israelis were the only ones left on the field. The former tosses us in the air like a ball and the latter kicks it.

Now, with October 7 and the war on Gaza, it can be said that the push to nip Levantine nationhood in the bud has been successful, starting from and building on its success in Palestine. Anyone looking for regional stability that could foster statehood will find nothing but a war that springs from Gaza and does not end there. It will likely be multipronged and complex, albeit while taking various forms.

And anyone looking for autonomous forces in the Levant capable of benefiting from the Israeli-Iranian conflict will find only increasing fragmentation accompanied and aggravated by rival communal and centrifugal groups fighting among themselves. The continued population drain, brain drain included, attests to the impossibility of building on demographic solid grounds, while the defeat of revolutions and reform movements in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq show that dynamics needed to bring about positive change will remain pending for a period that is difficult to predict.

As for the influential global powers in our region, their footprint remains overwhelmingly linked to military and security matters that overshadow their minimal political presence and role in shaping a vision for the future. What was that? “Future”?