Way back in 1939, Mohandas Karamchand ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi (October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948) wrote: “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.” Perhaps, Gandhi rightly explained the direction in which the conscience of the Independent Indian State and Indian citizens would lean, as far as the Israel-Palestine issue was concerned.

The psychology of the Indians has changed a lot in the past 84 years. Even after the month-long Israeli atrocities in Gaza, the South Asian nation has not called upon the global community to mediate between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Hamas Movement. Also, India did not vote in favour of a ceasefire proposal at the UN. All these indicate that New Delhi wants Israel to continue its genocidal attack on the innocent civilians in Gaza. It seems that India has no responsibility or liability to any moral code of conduct now. Conscientious Indian citizens have their heads down in shame due to this.

Now, a section of Indian citizens, who believes in Liberal Democracy, Civil Liberties and Tolerance of State, is facing a huge crisis. These people are hated as Liberals in today’s India! They are often called Anti-Nationals and Urban Naxals. The ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Hamas has made them more anti-national, because (the Indian State believes) opposing the Israeli atrocities means supporting a terrorist outfit (Hamas) and Islamic terrorism. Indeed, this is a tough situation. Undeniably, India is one of the favourite targets of Islamic terrorism. Hence, a different idea of nationalism considers criticising Israel means supporting Hamas, and encouraging Islamic terrorism. However, this is not a straightforward equation.

Two images, published in global media, need to be considered in this context. The first image shows an elderly Israeli couple being dragged into separate cars as hostages. As they would never see each other, the wife started screaming and told her husband not to forget to take medicines. The second image shows a five-year-old Palestinian child standing near a pile of corpses. The rescuers were asking for his name, but the child remained speechless as he forgot his name due to the trauma. Only human beings can destroy human lives with this ferocity!

In actuality, the majority of the Indian liberals are shell-shocked by the Israeli, as well as Hamas, atrocities. It is also a fact that they consider the Israeli atrocities terrible, because it is impossible to equate a terror outfit (as the West has claimed that Hamas is a terrorist organisation) with a modern nuclear-powered State. Hamas members are fighting for an Independent Palestinian State. So far, they have not carried out terror attacks in any part of the world (except Israel that has occupied their land for more than seven decades). Hence, it seems that one might have to think twice before calling the Palestinian Movement a terror outfit. However, if a powerful state itself becomes a terrorist and indulges in the slaughter of unarmed and helpless innocent people, such a state is more despicable. Noam Chomsky has already explained why a centuries-old movement, called Christian Zionism, has turned into a dominant force of Jewish Zionism in the Southern Hemisphere, and it considers Israel’s invasion of Palestine a sacred duty. According to Chomsky, it is quite understandable why countries that create International Law so easily resort to fuelling the horrific Human Rights abuses in Palestine.

The question arises here: Is there any other way for a Liberal Democratic mind to call this war crime (one of the worst since the Second World War) as ultimate injustice? It may be noted that all the Palestinians are not supporters of Hamas. Instead, Hamas is using the Palestinians as shields while fighting against Israel. Hence, one should admit that Israel has committed a crime by cutting off water supply, electricity and communication in the Gaza Strip. These moves cannot be considered as necessary steps to counter terrorism.

Meanwhile, the political ideologues (both Right-wing and Left-wing) are backing terrorism in a different manner. The Rightists are of the opinion that Israel has the right to defend itself as the Jewish nation was attacked by Hamas on October 7, 2023. Perhaps, they seem to forget that everyone has the Right to Self-defence… both the Israelis and the Palestinians. If one is ready to accept Israel’s rights, then s/he shall have to accept the rights of Palestine. Secondly, a self-defending state can adopt a different policy after experiencing a terror attack rather than bombarding a country that sponsors terrorism. During the Prime Ministership of Dr Manmohan Singh, India did not attack neighbouring Pakistan when Lashkar-e-Toiba (a Pakistan-based terror outfit) carried out a series of terror attacks in western Indian city of Mumbai on November 26, 2008. It is because Dr Singh’s India was well aware of the fact that there is a difference between common citizens and terrorists of any country. Thirdly, only religious fanatics think that Arab Muslims should be killed and driven out to make room for Jews. Finally, the Rightists try to establish similarities between Israel and India by arguing that Islamic terrorism is the main enemy of both countries. Although the crisis is real, the analogy is unreal. A decolonised Independent India has never uprooted anyone outside its own territory, while Israel has been a coloniser of sorts.

Leftists, too, have some misconceptions about the Palestine issue. They often minimise the responsibility of Hamas while opposing Israel. Senior Hamas official Khaled Mashal, himself, admitted that the Palestinian Movement was “well aware of the consequences” of its brutal October 7 (2023) attack on Israel, saying that the Palestinians would need to sacrifice lives in order to liberate themselves from Israel. A number of Leftists believe that Hamas terrorism and the Palestinian crisis cannot be de-hyphenated (separated), as the long persecution of Palestinians has created the outfit. The question is, whether one can really explain goals or means with context? The answer is: No. Violence, especially against innocent people, should be avoided in all circumstances.

The Leftists have a tendency to downplay the wrongdoings of minorities in the pretext of Secularism. This tendency is as dangerous as religious fanaticism. Even if a terrorist is a follower of Islam, s/he is guilty of committing the worst crime. To use the concept of secularism in appeasing the minority community ultimately lays the foundation of religious fanaticism.

Both the Rightists and the Leftists are trying to judge the Palestinian crisis through the lens of anti-Islamism. It is wrong, as well as dangerous! This is not a religious crisis, but a political one. Egypt has closed its borders with Gaza for so long and Saudi Arabia has remained silent on the Palestine issue mainly because of political-diplomatic reasons. At times, it looks like the Rightists and the Leftists explain the Palestine issue through the lens of religion in an attempt to mess up the actual fact. The decades-long problem should be solved through Humanity. People abiding by other religious beliefs may live in the land of Palestine. However, they cannot take away the basic rights of the Palestinian people.

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Facebook

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Twitter

Boundless Ocean of Politics on Linkedin

Contact: kousdas@gmail.com

Published by Koushik Das

Koushik Das (born on May 16, 1976 in Kolkata) is a career journalist. Based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, Koushik writes mainly about foreign policies and current geopolitical issues, and rarely about other topics. His own political ideas are highly influenced by Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Michael Oakeshott and others. English philosopher and political theorist Oakeshott (Dec 11, 1901-Dec 19, 1990) says that “in political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea. There is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place, nor appointed destination. But we have to keep afloat”. (Rationalism in Politics, 1962) As a student of Political Science, Koushik loves to share his views on issues, which have great impacts on his thought process (and also on India, South Asia and of course on the global community), with his readers through his website – Boundless Ocean of Politics. By doing so, he tries to keep himself afloat. You will find some of his articles in https://inserbia.info/today/ (https://inserbia.info/today/author/kou_das13_i/), as he has been trying to assess the global geopolitics since 2003. You can also mail him at kousdas@gmail.com View all posts by Koushik Das