pakistanwatch – youtube – blog

Media openness in Pakistan, Indian tunnel vision and Israel’s Jedi Mind Trick

leave a comment »

Here we have national patriotic songs about India – including references to Pakistan as the enemy.

And this airs openly on Pakistan TV.

I wonder if India has the same “dil ki barhai”. Lack of that is one of the reason why the “atoot ang” of Pakistan was broken from India.

India Pakistan separation

Contrary to much of Indian thinking, it was not because Jinnah “broke it”, but because leaders like Nehru and Patel essentially WANTED it to break.

Thus they did not cooperate when Jinnah offered compromises – or as Aga Khan said that they did not show “dil ki barhai” (or something like that).

However it is “understandable” how Hindus may have had trouble exercising “dil ki barhai” in the same way as Muslim rulers of Indian states exercised.

And the reason is that they had not had Hindu rule in North India for ages – although they did have Hindu princely states – but they did not have a central Indian state.

In fact India was never (since the time of Ashoka) able to have a unified Hindu state. Not only because of Muslim outsiders, but because there was tension between princely states.

The current “India” is essentially a product from the time of Akbar’s mass consolidation of it into an “empire”. The weaving of multiple religious communities into one.

The second stage of India’s consolidation happened because of another invader – the British.

At the time of partition, Nehru and the other Hindu leadership realized, that NOW was not only a novel time, but an OPPORTUNITY which may not arrive again. The British had weaved together a huge nation, many of which may have worked under an outsider’s rule, but had little to do with each other.

Plus someone like Nehru or Patel MAY NOT have been able to construct such an empire ON THEIR OWN.

So the opportunity was not to be missed – the British were leaving and they wanted to take over. They were grassroots leaders who had risen in the environment that the British had created. At any other time Nehru or Patel may not have been able to overcome the Muslim and Hindu princely state rulers and other native leaders.

In that environment, the separation of the areas over which Nehru and others may not have been able to exercise moral control over (the NWFP – anyone who is seeing the conditions there now will KNOW that Nehru could not have handled them) may have been apparent to Nehru and Patel.

Jinnah as villian

So even when Jinnah was willing to agree to a federation, Nehru and Patel were not interested.

When Jinnah threatened them with partition, Nehru and Patel called the bluff.

In essence Patel had planned organized actions to ensure that Muslims would migrate to India – thus he was the modern day Modi. Even though he is considered a great grassroots leader of Hindu India.

The irony is that Pakistanis are ROUTINELY “morally put down” by crocodile tears of Indians saying that “oh our atoot ang was broken” and “Jinnah was a villain”.

The first generation of Indians may have had crocodile tears, but subsequent generations of Indians may actually believe this “story”.

In fact Jinnah is reviled in India as if he was the SOLE reason for the breakup of India. And as if they REALLY wanted the Muslims of what is now Pakistan part of India (when they can’t even tolerate the ones they have there).

What Patel did not achieve was a complete ethnic cleansing – though for them, perhaps the evisceration of the Muslim well to do class was sufficient, as an assertion of Hindu interest REQUIRED that firstly all those who had a history of rule over India were removed, otherwise Nehru and Patel would never be able to be totally free to act like leaders.

Not only the Muslim princely states, but also the Hindu princely states would have eaten them up.

In this one can see how the British created ARMY of India was the essential TOOL that Nehru and Patel and others were able to LEVERAGE. Thus if the British had not consolidated empire, and created a mechanism for it’s running, Nehru and Patel type people would never have been able to wrest control from the Indian princes and other concentrated areas of strength in India.

It is for this reason that it could be said that the STRUCTURE and nature of India and the ability of the leaders of that time was BECAUSE of the history of British rule.

Thus while at any other time Nehru and other Hindu leaders MAY not have been able to exercise control, AT THE TIME the British were leaving this was a real possibility. Given their role while under British rule, they were strategically placed to take control of India – much better placed than the princely states or any other leaders of that time. But this was a NARROW window of opportunity, and any delay would have left them open to the depredations of the multitudes of other leaders who may have emerged after the British left the scene.

And if they were to rule India, they may have realized there are some areas (NWFP being one) which they would NEVER be able to exercise control over. Once it was understood that SOME areas COULD be ceded to a separate entity, the additional BENEFIT of having such a place would not have been hidden from them. It would be a good place to DUMP any and all Muslims (especially Muslim leadership) to that place. It would be a “humane” way to do it, and they would have to kill many lesser number of Muslims to achieve the same goal.

Also it would ensure that the leadership of the Muslim stronghold areas would be EVISCERATED so they could rule whatever remnants that remained in India with far greater ease.

In essence Nehru and Patel collaborated to do some ETHNIC CLEANSING.

A new beginning for Nehru

The possibility of a new Hindu dominated center was a NOVELTY and an opportunity that was not to be missed. The continuation of Muslim princely states (which were dominant in North India) was a “rora” (i.e. pebble) in it’s path (comparing to Pakistani feudals and the problems they created in the rapid development of Pakistan, this view is UNDERSTANDABLE).

Given the lack of cooperation of Muslims in general for the “new system” of the British – which essentially reduced Urdu speaking educated class to the level of “uneducated” with the introduction of English as the medium of instruction and of government business.

Because of that (and history) muslims in general in North India looked to the princely state rulers as leaders, while Hindus may have had a more non-feudal sense, which developed by leaps and bounds as they embraced the new British environment and adapted to it’s rules. For THEM it was just a replacement of ONE invading ruler by ANOTHER.

This is why to the Hindus (unless they were Hindus with close relations to the princely states and the Mughal Empire – and there were many of those) the transition did not hold any great moral dilemma, while it DID to the Muslims for whom the usurpation of the Mughal Empire was a DISCONTINUITY in “how things are done”.

Hindu leadership was also more grassroots and related to a rising Hindu middle class (?), while Muslims had not risen from their anti-British sentiment/state (although Sir Syed Ahmed Khan HAD tried to move them towards that as he saw the “fait accompli” state of the situation). Lacking alternate Muslim leadership, it was a practical IMPOSSIBILITY that an alternative would emerge. If anything it would be learning the tools of the British which COULD enable the emergence of a new force of Muslims who were conversant in the sciences of the West as well as of the East.

Seeing these conditions, it is perhaps not hard to see WHY the Hindus may have seen the Muslims as a “rora” along their path. And to jettison as many of them to a separately carved state as possible (i.e. ethnic cleansing). Muslims were 50 years behind the Hindus in their assimilation into British culture and science.

Partition, Rationale for Pakistan and conflicted opinions

In a way the Pak/India partition was one of the first “ethnic cleansings” in modern times.

The creation of Pakistan SUITED the Hindu extremists as well. While many Muslims saw the creation of Pakistan as an administrative separation after which cultural ties and travel would NOT be hindered, Nehru and Patel may have WANTED the flow to be once and never to be reversed (for God’s sakes!).

The realities of Partition quickly changed the climate and any expectations for reversal (although it would not be until the 1965 wars that travel and contact would be constrained further).

However the bloodshed of Partition was enough to turn many people AWAY from those backgrounds. Most wanted to forget and move on in the “new land”.

And the movement of large groups of Muslims was sufficient to ensure that there were no “old environments” left to go back to in India.

This period was perhaps difficult for the Muslims who remained in India as well – as it totally EVISCERATED the upper classes (or those who were able to make the move to Pakistan) and essentially REMOVED the whole Muslim LEADER class from India.

Essentially in the rush and emotion of Partition, the Muslim classes which COULD move abandoned the lower and unable-to-move Muslim classes who were left in India, leaderless and at the mercy of the by-now FAR greater Hindu majority. The inundation of fresh refugees from Pakistan FURTHER reduced the importance of the old Muslim inhabitants of the old cities. In fact they changed the characters of Delhi and other place FURTHER away. In essence cities changed character with no prospect for reversal.

Thus partition essentially destroyed some microcultures. Both for Hindus in Pakistani areas, as well as Muslims in Indian areas.

Most would not be able to recreate their home village environments or their old centuries old environments in their new areas, except by loose connections with relatives and friends.

There was great mixing of cultures, cities lost their cultural traditions and language and habit changed.

In essence it was the destruction of many cultures – as Maulana Azad (of India/Congress) foresaw. In this sense Azad was a FAR closer analyzer of Muslim culture. He knew it would be destroyed if partition was taken to the extreme. And bad things went to worse. Eventually there would be fracturing of the old cultures that existed for centuries in the cities.

Jinnah in contrast was perhaps LESS aware of this, as well as the new leaders – for the Aga Khan it was a chance to establish something close to the country they had been seeking all this while (perhaps ?). For the feudals of Pakistan it was an opportunity to save themselves from the land reforms Nehru was sure to enact in India. These groups did not see the impact partition would have on the cultures existant in the big cities of India and Pakistan and how they would be destroyed or at least would be changed significantly.

And this explains the reluctance of the Muslim Ulema of India. Although they are much pilloried for their “mistake”, there are probably REASONS for their conclusions. Much like Azad they may have had GREATER sense of the native sensibility of Muslims and Hindus (as opposed to the westernized London-based or world-travelled views of Jinnah and Iqbal). For them India was a fertile ground for conversion. A devout Muslims would NOT have any issue living in a sea of Hindus if his intent was correct. It was for the SECULAR Muslim that the real problem existed – i.e. they wanted to behave with freedom and without care for the Hindus. For them “outreach” and ability to access the HUGE Hindu population of India was NOT an opportunity but a scary thought. For the Muslim Ulema – who were comfortable with themselves and their intent – it was an OPPORTUNITY to be afforded access to such a large base of people.

And this might explain the difference in views of the Ulema and the native thinkers like Azad and the Western-exposed and possibly wider-Muslim-Ummah thinkers like Iqbal and Jinnah.

After having invaded and settled and worked in these areas for CENTURIES, a lot of these people may have seen a demand for a separate homeland a sign of WEAKNESS and a sign of WITHDRAWAL (similar in a way to the RETREAT of the U.S. from Vietnam). It telegraphed that “the Muslims had failed” in their enterprise of arriving in Hindustan and influencing it’s people towards Islam.

From the religious point of view, a withdrawal of Muslim forces from Hindustan may have been seen as a colossal and HISTORIC withdrawal.

Also the time scale of perception might have been very different between Jinnah, Iqbal and the feudals versus the Ulema and Azad (who may have see “success” in terms of centuries). Anyone exposed to Muslim history WILL have a much larger canvas of history and a much larger vision of time-scale.

Partition and organized gangs

Partition was exactly the need of Nehru and Patel. It solved a number of problems for Nehru and Patel and the concept of Hindu “Raj” over India.

Given the historic nature of a re-installation of Hindu rule after millenia, Nehru and Patel were not about to have it spoiled by Muslim leaders becoming uppity after the British left.

If there was a move towards Partition, Nehru and Patel would NOT have been all that worried, because such a separation came with some advantages as well.

Patel was implicated in organized actions which ensured that Muslims LEFT their places. That is, for Patel etc. it was not sufficient that the countries would be separated. To extract the true benefit of the creation of a SEPARATE state for Muslims, they HAD to ensure that enough of the Muslim leadership left the India that it would make it easy for the new Hindu leadership to assert themselves without “historical fear”. The mere presence of the SAME Muslims who considered themselves the “old rulers” (prior to the British) was enough of a threat that their removal was essential.

Natives of the Pakistani areas exercised similar ethnic cleansing practices in many areas.

The “myth” of Indian crocodile tears for “separation of Pakistan”

It is one of the great “spin” stories of recent history – and one which is a favourite of Indians all over the world – and one for which Pakistanis fall routinely – is the Indian practice to always put one over the Pakistanis that “YOU” separated India and the “atoot ang” of what is now Pakistan.

The reality is that Nehru and Patel and all the founding leaders of India DID NOT want Pakistan as part of India.

For them it was a necessary sacrifice to ENSURE a separate land where Muslims could be DUMPED.

The irony is that Pakistanis have developed a “two-nation” theory. This was just an understanding of the essential differences in ideals between the Muslims and Hindus of India. With the “achhoot” and caste differences, and the Muslim requirement to treat shudras as equals (ideally), and other such things (Hindus not eating food sent by Muslims and vice versa for some extreme Muslims). For Hindus (understandably) the arrival of dishes from a cow-eating Muslim household would be like dishes sent to a Muslim family from a pork-eating household (“can’t be sure the oil is halal” etc.).

The differences are not insignificant.

However once Pakistan was established, rather than just drift along, a conception was reinforced – of the “two nation theory”.

Perhaps to rationalize WHY people made the tough move from India – those who were local to the Pakistani areas did not go through the same generational loss that those who came over from India – some of them soon forgot the advantages of having their loans (taken from Hindu Banias) forgiven, or the advantage of taking over fleeing Hindus’ homes and assets, and instead saw the influx of new immigrants as dilutive and destructive of THEIR culture (as in Delhi there was a rapid influx of Sikh refugees from Pakistan).

Migrating Muslims – some of them also benefited occasionally – but often not in any proportion to their holdings in India. Usually far less, but in some cases probably far MORE as many leveraged loopholes and bribes into land deeds for Hindu property.

However it is a tradition that Indians will mention the “breaking up of India”.

And Pakistanis routinely think that (because they have been repeating the “two nation theory” and that THEY created Pakistan despite great reluctance from India – or the British for that matter). Sure there was reluctance, but it was probably to ensure as little useful stuff went to Pakistan as possible. But they probably didn’t care for keeping Pakistan in India, because otherwise they would have doubled efforts to ensure no Partition happened. Something they didn’t do.

However Pakistani who meet Indians outside Pakistan can be fooled by this rhetoric and either go on the defensive, or in a fit of pique go on the offensie – because they DO have a feeling that what the Indians are saying does not make sense (if the Hindus were SO accomodating there would not HAVE to have been a Partition).

This is ironic because even though the newer generations of India may ACTUALLY believe this, the reality is, around Partition, Nehru and Patel DID NOT WANT this part of India to be under their control. They didn’t want the people in these places to be their “riaya” (since they were not Hindus and would ALWAYS be a problem to control). Plus the existence of a MUSLIM AREA provided an opportunity – it provided a place where Muslims could be “encouraged” (with riots and killing thanks to Patel) to “move”.

Essentially the existence of a “muslim area” facilited or allowed “ethnic cleansing” to be carried out without having to kill as many people.

A “Hindu State” was the opportunity of a millenium. Hindu rule over all of India had NOT been a reality after Ashoka. Obviously this was not just due to invaders, but also because there were rifts between the areas and local rulers of each part of India. In addition, the British HAD a working EMPIRE and it was available to be just HANDED over to them.

So Nehru and others got a working state, with a huge Army (fresh from World War II). And they were able to leverage the prominence they achieved during British rule (which many of their non-English speaking fellow Indians were not able to achieve). Just like Jinnah as an English speaking lawyer was able to rise to the top BECAUSE he was the only one who could deal with the British and the nuances of their thought. At any other time, Jinnah or Nehru might not have been the natural leader for the Muslims or Hindus.

As a side-note this illustrates how the CHOICE of leader by a people CAN sometimes be influenced by the OPPONENTS you are dealing with. So even while a people MAY think they are choosing the leader they want, in effect because of the pressures they are under the choice winds up being biased towards those who are able to match the specific type of opponent (in this case the British).

This is probably the reason why even while the Muslims HATED the British for being interlopers, they wound up picking a leader who was much different from the average Muslim voter and FAR closer to the British ideal of a successful person. This topic – “how come we chose a wine drinking, English speaking leader” – which is raised by Pakistanis on occasion but never answered might thus have the aforementioned explanation as the possible reason.

Nehru and others also saw that there was a very narrow window of opportunity. With partition they had a place to throw the Muslim leadership and a substantial portion of the population. Once they had removed the Muslim princely states as well (which were MORE numerous than Hindu princely states) using the British Indian Army (which was now at their disposal) they were well on their way to be undisputed leaders.

Thus it was the transitional British Army at the disposal of Nehru and others which ALLOWED them to essentially take over from the British AND trump all the other contenders who MIGHT have emerged after the British left India.

And the British were leaving ANYWAY after the wearying effects of World War II (and the incessant problems caused by local leaders). They had to leave it to SOMEONE. And Nehru was not half bad.

The Nehru/Patel behaviour is NOT unlike Zulfiqar Bhutto’s behaviour with Mujibur Rahman (founder of Bangladesh).

For the Hindu strategists (who participated in conferences in Spain about how THEY were able to remove the Muslim population), the creation of Pakistan ALSO was an opportunity to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE India of all the problematic Muslims who were capable of leadership – any reluctant Muslims would have to be pushed out with some “encouragement” (riots).

For an Indian corroboration of this view, see “Partition of India: Legend and Reality – H.M. Seervai”. It confirms the relative honesty of Jinnah and the obstructionist behaviour of Gandhi and Nehru and the complicity of Patel. This is not new for Pakistani historians and those who lived through the period, but it is refreshing to hear an Indian perspective on this topic that seems to dovetail with the general Pakistani sense of the whole matter.

Links to the Israel/Palestinian story

The story has parallels with how Israel has handled the Palestinian territories. They have traditionally WANTED a separate Palestinian state. Yet the Arab countries have been “convinced” that “they need” a separate Palestinian state.

This is one of the MOST EGREGIOUS “pulling the wool over” Muslim heads.

What Muslims generally DO NOT realize is that it is in ISRAEL’s interest to have a separate Palestinian state.

This is because Palestinians have a higher birth rate, and it has been a consistent “bad dream” for Israeli thinkers that they are suffering from a Palestinian DEMOGRAPHIC bomb which will eventually SWAMP the Jewish part of Israel.

For the Israelis a SEPARATE Palestinian state is an ESSENTIAL part of their doctrine.

The irony here is that they have wound up SPOILING THAT very same thing. And this has happened because of a whole generation of cocky leaders like Sharon, who got a little TOO confident about things in the face of losses by Palestinians and Arabs.

In their hubris from this, and their confidence that “Washington was in their pocket” (or something to that effect – as Sharon bragged), Israel has now gone OVERBOARD.

Constructing highways, and barriers, and planting “settler” colonies THROUGOUT Palestinian areas, essentially reducing it to a Swiss Cheese type of situation, where a Palestinian state is NO LONGER a viability.

The wiser Jewish thinkers have been PANICKING in the recent past. Organizations like “Peace NOW” who are portrayed as “pro-Arab” are actually looking out for Jewish interests and are seeing great threat from the hubris of the Sharons among Israels leaders.

The practice of war has led Israelis into a “gung ho” state – and that has contributed to this hubris – that they can “go all the way” (something reminiscent of Hitler’s “solution” to go beyond all limits and actually achieve what can be a totally self-serving outcome, as there is a feeling that “we are now in a situation that is completely different” i.e. a “brave new world”).

However there are Jewish groups (minority) who have been concerned.

For these groups the time window for doing SOMETHING is growing shorter by the day.

They are almost DESPERATE for SOME peace deal to be reached where some Palestinian land could just be HANDED over to the Palestinians and forgotten. This would give them the PEACE OF MIND that they CAN have a purely or nearly purely Jewish state. And they would HAVE A PLACE to dump all the Palestinians (note the similarities to India wanting to dump the Muslim leadership into Pakistan).

The FEAR for Jewish thinkers is that IF NO Palestinian state is created, and aided by the Sharon-like behaviour of the last many years, there WILL eventually be calls on Israel to “own” the problem. That is take IN all the Palestinians and create a DEMOCRATIC state – just like South Africa. Especially when a Palestinian state becomes a non-reality.

The Arab states have to be wise to this – and understand that a Palestinian state IS A TRAP. Arafat became a willing dupe in his later years (probably wanting to get something done in his old age – essentially he was brought in to arrest the momentum of the first Intifada. And Israel succeeded in a way – but it was temporary.

As the Hamas (a party Israel had HELPED to create as a counter-balance to Arafat earlier on) party emerged as a challenge to Arafat and his “deal”. Plus outside funding and a steadily increasing CRUEL ISRAEL ensured that Palestinians were not going to accept a moth-eaten Palestine.

As it stands now, Palestine is NON-VIABLE.

Even when Arafat camp was in power they needed APPROVAL from Israel to do anything.

If there is chaos, it is ISRAEL which steps in.

In essence, Israel IS the ruler of Palestine.

They are DEFACTO a PART of Israel.

The events in South Africa destroyed an Israeli ally – the Apartheid State. And it ALSO created a precedent for a UNIFICATION of a split state. Incidentally, Israel was a collaborator with the S. African apartheid regime, so it will be remembered for being on the wrong side of history.

In recent years Israel have gone SO far beyond their bounds that the S. African model has started to reverberate in U.S. ears as well. The misadventures of U.S. (some of it at Israeli/Neo-Con insistence) has made some thinkers in the U.S. alert to the dangers of alliances with Israel. The momentary benefit of 9/11 for Israel has over the years turned into a growing movement within the U.S. to steadily encroaching Israeli interest.

When 9/11 happened, and while people blared that it was beneficial to Israel, it was clear at that time that in the LONG RUN, this would DESTROY Israel’s ability to run U.S. foreign policy. Why ? Because foreign policy in the Middle East was entering into DOMESTIC visibility for the FIRST time. Inevitably it would lead to examination by more Americans of the CAUSES and WHAT/WHY of the 9/11 event.

Things took such a head that eventually someone got the courage to publish a book on the Israeli Lobby (Walt and Mearscheimer). What made it worse was they got pilloried for it.

Then Jimmy Carter went further and wrote a book that essentially compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa. What made it even worse was that he was called an anti-semite. In some quarters the by-now-venerable Jimmy Carter being meted out punishment usually reserved for Palestinian activists was seen as cruelly harsh by some Americans. They sensed something was “not right”. For a lot of Americans this episode gave them pause that “maybe it IS true after all”.

If people had not seen it already that Israel WAS an Apartheid State, it was Israel’s steadily more arrogant policies of making border walls, and extreme actions in Lebanon (without realizing the world had changed – with the internet and an Arab media) which EVENTUALLY made people see Israel as looking eerily like the S. Africa of old. Even VISUALLY the images from Israel (with the high border walls) had started to LOOK like S. Africa.

The irony is that the Arabs STILL do not see what is happening.

It is interesting that Iran DOES understand it. Some of their policy papers HAVE recognized this demographic bomb in Israel. And it maybe that Ahmedinejad’s comments that Israel will disintegrate ARE essentially based on this basic reality.

The election of a black president – Obama – creates an odd situation. Where a black president (who is innately aligned with the black experience in the U.S. and the anti-apartheid nature of their sensibilities derived from the Apartheid S. African period) has come to power.

However a wrinkle on that is that it was JEWISH supporters of Obama who essentially hastened his candidacy. People like Valerie Jarrett and some of Obama’s election campaign head organizers like David Axelrod.

While they may have been motivated by the fears of Bush that moved many Americans to seek out Obama, as JEWISH thinkers they MAY have had the sense that the current Israeli leadership HAS to be stopped. The Middle East “peace process” HAS to be improved.

Why ?

Because they see the current period as the LAST chance to SALVAGE Israel as a Jewish state, by carving out a Palestinian state FAST and NOW.

We SHOULD now start to see the Jewish lobby get really desperate to start this FAST.

Another reason is that post-Iraq and post-9/11 it was INEVITABLE that Americans WOULD wind up finding out more about the world. And to start to ask that if foreign policy DOES affect domestic conditions, then voters DO need to know about foreign policy. This would EVENTUALLY erode Jewish influence because thus far Jewish leaders had essentially OUTSOURCED all decisionmaking about the Middle East to THEMSELVES. With words like “you do not understand the Arabs, we do – let us handle that”. Americans usually deferred to the Israelis on matters they were clueless about or found mindnumbingly convoluted.

While 9/11 was a short-term victory for Israel. However it was a LONG TERM DISASTER in the waiting. Because EVENTUALLY Americans would have to know about the world to understand what is happening (as the Iraq War got prolonged).

As it stands now, there is a growing anti-Iraq War sentiment growing in the U.S. PLUS the sense among thinking Americans that the U.S. was DRAGGED into needless war with Iraq precisely because Israel wanted a strong Arab neighbour neutralized for it’s long term survival.

Many see the hostility to Iran ALSO linked to Israel’s paranoia to remove the SECOND strong opponent – who is still capable of influencing Hamas.

As a caveat this probably does not include the 50% of voters for Bush – that group is probably intact in it’s original state of ignorance.

Under these conditions ANY Jewish advisor to Obama will face an uphill challenge.

However contrary to the expectation that Obama (with his Muslim sensibilities AND the black sensibilities) MAY go for the “just” and “honorable” solution of a single state and a REAL democratic country.

Because thus far Israel in a clever use of words calls itself the only democracy in the Middle East.

But that appellation is wearing thin, as people have seen just what sort of a “democracy” it is. When it isolates people – does ethnic cleansing and calls the “cleansed” part a “dmocracy”.

It is like the Greek “democracy” – where power resided in the elite and all others were SLAVES (no voting rights).

What is amazing is that this illusion by Israel was able to survive this long ! And the reason is that Arabs NEVER LEARNED to tackle the Israeli slogans in a logical way instead of collapsing in a state of blubbering emotional talk. It also doesn’t help when “Peace Process” sounded like “Piss Process” when Arafat uttered it.

Any smooth talking Arab could have convinced Americans LONG ago that Israel is not a democracy – FAR from it.

But the persistent “terrorism” epithet did not help in turning people’s heads.

It was not until the Iraq War gave American’s pause to start to question some things.

So in my estimation, Obama’s Jewish handlers i.e. Valerie Jarrett and others WILL try one last time to ensure that Israel STILL gets an opportunity to make a Palestinian state. And she will push for all kinds of concessions IF the Palestinians will accept.

To ensure that they will also have to cow Iran somewhat. Perhaps with an attack.

However there IS another dynamic working here. First it is Obama. And a side-effect of it is Obama’s choice of advisors – Biden, Lugar, Chuck Hagel. These are people who are NOT as gung ho or sure about being pro-Israel (though Biden’s son IS married to a jewish lady).

So it is still unclear how things will work out.

This was just to highlight that what the BULK of Muslims think in the world can sometimes be a “Jedi Mind Trick”.

Because the OIC is not known for it’s brilliance, and because Israel knows the weaknesses of the Arabs – tribal pride and personal honour – they can by ACTING like they DO NOT want a Palestinian state ENSURE that the Arabs ask for JUST THAT.

Originally the Israelis wanted greater territory as that “can’t be bad” – worst outcome would be they could just trade it back for some “peace”.

However over time “peace” did not happen. They WERE excluding Palestinians all the time – in fact the creation of the Israeli state WAS accompanied by acts of ethnic cleansing. Which is ONLY NOW being accepted by Israeli historians and the West – even though everybody else already knew that. Which just tells you how much the Western public knows or WANTS their people to know.

Americans would be happy killing Vietnamese if it were not for Americans dying in droves there. So that gave impetus to the “peace movement”. If not as many Americans had been dying in the Vietnam War there would NOT have been the groundswell which eventually aided the moral anti-war stance of a very small set of people (like Muhammad Ali the boxer).

As a side-note, the higher birth rate among Palestinians may not just be for the stereotyped “Muslims have higher birth rates”, but ALSO because they are in a stressed situation. And in stressed situations population groups tend to have higher birth rates – as each family over-procreates to compensate in their small way.

Media openness in Pakistan – Indian tunnel vision

Jedi Mind Trick
“Partition of India: Legend and Reality – H.M. Seervai”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: