This is the thought of Gandhi on the Arab-Jewish. I say "Arab-Jewish" because in the year in which it was expressed by him, 1938, Israel did not exist. Leggiamolo together.
I received many letters asking me to express my opinion on the dispute between Arabs and Jews in Palestine and the persecution of Jews in Germany. It is not without hesitation that I venture to give an opinion on such thorny issues.
My sympathies are all Jews. In South Africa I have been in close relations with many Jews. Some of these have become my close friends. Through these friends I learned a lot about-old persecution of the Jews were concerned.
[...] But I have sympathy for the Jews I did not close his eyes to justice. The claim of the Jews in a country does not seem right. In support such claim is called the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have always longed to return to Palestine. Because, like other peoples of the earth, the Jews should not make their home in the country where they were born and where they earn a living?
Palestine belongs to Arabs as England belongs to the English and France belongs to the French. It is unfair and inhumane to impose the presence of Jews to Arabs. What is happening in Palestine today can not be justified by any moral principle. The mandates have no value except that given them by the last war. It would clearly be a crime against humanity, forcing the proud Arabs to repay part or all Palestine to the Jews as their national territory. The correct thing is to demand fair treatment for the Jews, wherever they are born or they may be. The Jews born in France are French exactly as they are French Christians born in France. If the Jews claim to have no other home and Palestine, are willing to be driven from other parts of the world in which they reside? Or do a double home where they are established as they please?
[...] I am convinced that the Jews are acting unfairly. The biblical Palestine is not a geographical entity. It must be in their hearts. But even assuming that they regard as the land of Palestine as their homeland, it is unfair to get into it shield making of guns. Religious action can not 'be accomplished with the help of bayonets and bombs (as well as all others). Jews can settle in Palestine only with the consent of the Arabs.
[...] I will not defend the excesses committed by the Arabs. I wish they had chosen the method of nonviolence to resist against what he rightly considered as an aggression of their country. But according to the universally accepted canons of right and wrong, can not say anything against the resistance of the Arabs in the face of overwhelming enemy forces.
Gandhi anti-Zionist? Definitely. Anti-Semitic? Do not exaggerate. First we must contextualize his thought.
In 1938 the situation was obviously very different from today: the Holocaust had not yet occurred (although the anti-Semitic violence in Germany were in progress), was a time when Arabs were mobilizing against Jewish immigration to Palestine and had been refused by them two years before the first proposal for partition of the region. To all this we must add a look at the situation in which Indian Gandhi himself was directly involved at the time: his "war" non-violent to the British for the independence of his nation was under way and considering that until then, England had never done anything to prevent Jews migrating to Palestine ( that situation would change soon ), it is quite clear that his criticism of the Jewish national claims are to be read even in an anti-English .
The Indian leader says In support of this claim [of a Jewish national territory] is invoked the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have always longed to return to Palestine. This is wrong, so if we see is not exactly good. Although ultra-millenary also pushed by the desire to re-establish the ancient Israel, Zionism has never made Bible its reason for being, but rather the movement founded by Herzl stemmed from finding that Jews could never live in security, protected by the resurgence of anti-Semitism in their host nations. You can read it clearly in the work of the principal founder of the Zionist movement, the Der Judenstaat (available in full here ), which is the best answer to the question asked by Gandhi: 'cause, like the other peoples of the earth, Jews should not make their home in the country where they were born and where they earn a living? Further confirmation of the theory of realism would come some Zionist years later, with the Shoah.
The correct thing is to demand fair treatment for the Jews, wherever they are born or they may be. The Jews born in France are French exactly as they are French Christians born in France . But what a discovery! If only it were so, then in that case really would not need a Jewish state. But unfortunately it is not and it would be clearly understood by a few years.
So if the Jews were driven primarily by practical necessities of survival, before it hopes to be purely religious, that's the talk of Gandhi decade from the beginning: say what is happening in Palestine today can not 'be justified on any moral principle is simply inappropriate, then say that would clearly be a crime against humanity 'to force the proud Arabs to return in part [...] Palestine to the Jews as their national territory soon would prove unfounded; since the partition of the region into two separate and independent States was and still is the only possible solution for resolving the conflict (as if it had been accepted by the Arabs at the time, as it was by the Jews, today the so-called "Palestinian issue" does not exist).
The Indian leader added: but also admitted that they [the Jews] Consider the land of Palestine as their homeland, and 'making it unfair to enter into a shield of their rifles. [...] I will not defend the excesses committed by the Arabs. I wish they had chosen the method of nonviolence to resist against what he rightly considered as an aggression of their country. A passage understandable, considering the same methods used by Gandhi in the Indian context. But it is equally understandable and clear that the Arab riots, instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem Amin Husseini, against Jewish immigration of the '20s and '30s, there would never defend themselves without weapons , whereas they did not use some method of non-violence. The last sentence
effect of his thought is: based on universally accepted canons of right and wrong, can not 'be said anything against the resistance of the Arabs in the face of overwhelming enemy forces . These "generally accepted canons of right and wrong" would soon proved groundless: he still considered himself, at the time of this thinking, the support of the British Jewish immigration as a strength of the Jews against the Arabs but next year this would have been canceled. In 1939 the British in fact, as already mentioned, they imposed the restrictions inputs and purchases of land by Jews in the region and came just when you need it most, six months after the Kristallnacht . The British in fact turned his face to the Zionism after promise of help in establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine (which, remember, at the time as in the past was not a state but a region) and in fact these "overwhelming enemy forces", designed as a Jewish and British forces were no longer so clear they are no longer enemies but allies. A situation which certainly was very different from today's, which sees Israel's military and technological superiority (Although this superiority is not reflected in the field, since the methods used by Arab guerrillas somehow manages to overcome the inferiority of their means).
The thought of Gandhi is still often cited by "critics" of Israel to strengthen the theory of unlawfulness of the existence of a Jewish state and to emphasize the superiority of Israeli military that somehow Palestinians would justify the methods, by using the ' image of its author, who obviously can not be considered an anti-Semite or a warmonger, as if he could refer to the current Middle East situation. We forget, in fact, that this thought was expressed first the Holocaust, before the UN resolution of 1947 , in quite a different context from today's , from a character that, as illustrious was still a stranger viewer of the story (but still somewhat concerned in an anti-English). I have already spoken to who today denies the right of a Jewish state in spite of the persecution experienced over the centuries, the facts of how the facts are and then demonstrate the need for the existence of a Jewish state, as Gandhi had been able to think differently in the past, and although the "critical" and "peace" today possano ancora esserne contrari, nonostante tutto.
Probabilmente oggi anche Gandhi stesso, che era meno duro di comprendonio di molti “critici” di Israele attuali, lo avrebbe capito, considerando come poi sarebbero andate le cose nella storia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment