Pokémon-go in the Church-on-Blood

Playing in the virtual world can sometimes have unimaginable consequences in the real world.  Ruslan Sokolovsky, a 22 year old resident of Yekaterinburg, Russia, will have to wait until the coming Thursday to find out what they are in his case.

Ruslan Sokolovsky

Ruslan lost his father at the age of 13. His mother is chronically unwell. Ruslan moved from one faculty to another before settling to study law. At a young age, he decided God didn’t exist, and that religious people are irrational, perhaps psychologically weak. Religious institutions are deplorable, hand-in-glove with the politicians. Ruslan calls himself an atheist, a cosmopolitan and a libertarian. He began recording his thoughts and posting them as a video-blog. He soon developed a fan-base of a few thousands. He was delighted to learn he could monetise his popularity. He badly needed money for his survival and his mother’s care.

Pokémon-Go

In July 2016, the world saw the release of a new virtual reality game, Pokémon-go. Without it, this story would not have happened.  Pokémon-Go, in case you don’t know, is a GPS based game, where you go to public places with your Smartphone trying to catch the Pokémon (Pocket Monsters). As children, we ran after butterflies. After escaping a few times, when the butterfly was finally caught, it was an achievement for us. Catching Pokémon is similar, though much more complicated. The game is hugely addictive. Last summer, you could see Pokemaniacs of different ages running across roads, in parks, on beaches, in public spaces.

In the same month, Ruslan watched a news item on “Rossiya-24”, a TV channel. It warned viewers not to try to catch Pokémon in Russian orthodox churches.

As an atheist-nihilist, Ruslan decided to rebel. He went to the city’s most famous church – Church on Blood. After the 1917 Russian revolution the Tsar, his entire family and entourage were shot, bayoneted, and clubbed to death in this place, hence the name. (The church was built after the collapse of the USSR). Ruslan went around the church with his Smartphone in hand, trying to catch Pokémon. He didn’t say a word, nobody really noticed him. These days a person walking without a Smartphone attracts more attention.

Ruslan then went home, and prepared a video-report of his church visit. His report concluded with a piece of satire. It said he didn’t catch any Pokémon; not even the rarest Pokémon, Jesus. To spice up the video, he added a prayer with maternal insults in the background. The digital generation loves what is profane more than what is profound.

 The video clip spread like wildfire (1.2 million views). A psychiatrist on one TV channel called Sokolovsky mentally ill. Another channel discussed how Pokémon-Go creates hallucinations. The Orthodox Church expressed its displeasure, said it would meet him along with the police to teach him how to respect religion. The Church wanted people to pray, not play, in the church.   

A little before that, a Synagogue in St Petersburg had organised a competition. People were invited to the synagogue to catch Pokémon. The person who caught the maximum was given a bottle of ‘Kosher wine’ as a reward. The synagogue spokeswoman declared the event to be great fun. 

Official reaction

A week after Ruslan’s video, the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a statement saying the blogger’s video is being investigated by the police centre for combating extremism. Things began moving faster in September. Early morning on 2 September (the police prefer to raid houses when the occupants are sleeping), Ruslan’s apartment was raided. He was arrested and his video equipment confiscated. The judge remanded him to custody for two months. After his appeal, the detention was converted into house arrest.

Ruslan would have been under house arrest until the completion of his trial. However, his girlfriend came to his house to wish him on his birthday. As luck would have it, she bumped into an inspector. A house prisoner meeting anyone without official permission is a breach of regulations. Ruslan was sent back to the detention centre, where he would spend most of the winter. Russian winters can be long and miserable.

A month before his trial, in a form of relief, he was back under house arrest. The trial began on 13 March and would go on for nearly two months.

Ruslan was charged under three sections of Russia’s criminal law.

282: Inciting hatred or enmity and insulting human dignity.

148: Public actions expressing clear disrespect to society with the aim of insulting religious feelings of believers committed in places for religious worship. (This section was added in 2013, following the Pussy Riot case, where a group of young Russian women performed anti-Putin songs in a Moscow church).

138: Violation of the secrecy of conversations of individuals. (During the house raid, the police found a pen with a camera in it. This has been submitted in evidence as a ‘spy pen’).

The Trial

In a spirit of openness, the entire trial was transmitted live, filmed and posted on YouTube. Anyone who knows the Russian language can watch it, and pass his own judgement. The trial was full of a variety of characters.

Socio-psychic-psychiatric-religio-linguistic experts were called in by both sides. They discussed which words may or may not disrespect, hurt, insult. Does a maternal insult humiliate a person or offend him?

Ruslan’s advocate wrote to Patriarch Kirill (Russia’s Pope) asking whether he felt insulted. The Patriarch’s office replied this was a matter for the courts to decide.

The state witnesses said, yes, they were offended. They looked too elderly and too simple to have ever operated the internet. When Ruslan’s advocate probed deeper, a witness admitted she was invited by the police to watch Ruslan’s clip in an auditorium. She watched it and then felt deeply hurt and humiliated. A Muslim witness was added for good measure. He said he felt insulted as well, because Islam and Christianity have the same roots.

Ruslan’s advocate often asked the witnesses to show how they felt hurt. Show me where and how you were hurt, he asked, as if this was an automobile accident. No witness could answer him.

Amnesty International, meanwhile, had issued a statement calling Ruslan Sokolovsky a “prisoner of conscience” and asking the world community to write to Russian prosecutors demanding his immediate release.

The mayor of Yekaterinburg said people were not forced to watch clips on internet. If you don’t like someone or something, don’t watch it. He said Tolstoy and Pushkin had debated similar topics (religion), except they hadn’t used swear words.

The lady prosecutor demanded Ruslan be imprisoned for 3 ½ years.

In his final address, Ruslan refused to accept his guilt. He said he could be an idiot, but not an extremist. He has not disturbed anybody, or caused any violence. He is responsible for his ill mother. He appealed against a prison sentence. He knows what Russian prisons are like, imprisonment would destroy him.

The lady judge will give her verdict on Thursday, 11 May.

*****

Analysis

Salman Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo and Ruslan Sokolovsky

Salman Rushdie had to hide for eleven years after the publication of his Satanic Verses. I don’t think Khomeini ever read the book before issuing the fatwa. (Rushdie writes in a language of magic realism which is hard to understand for those who read Sidney Sheldon or Jeffrey Archer. However, Rushdie’s genius can be seen in Joseph Anton, his memoir written in plain and beautiful English. The basis for Joseph Anton is Rushdie’s period of living in fear for eleven years). With a different title, it’s possible the Muslim world would have ignored the book. If Rushdie knew what was going to happen, I doubt he would have written the book. Writers are revolutionaries in spirit, but they don’t wish to be killed in that revolution. Rushdie had ample freedom of speech in the country he was the citizen of, but his book hurt the feelings of a foreign theocrat.

In January, 2015 twelve people including sub-editors and eminent cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical French newspaper were killed by two brothers carrying guns. Charlie Hebdo calls itself secular, anti-religious. It publishes cartoons and articles against Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions. The reason for the attack was its publishing of cartoons on Prophet Mohammad. Though attacked in 2011 and 2015, Charlie Hebdo continues to publish satire mocking religions, including Islam.

In Rushdie’s case, the punishment was announced by an extraterritorial religious head. In the case of Charlie Hebdo, two terrorists executed twelve people for the alleged insult.

Sokolovsky’s case, though he is accused of insulting religious feelings as well, is different. It is an official case Sokolovsky vs Russian Orthodox Church which will be decided by the secular Russian state.

Atheism to religion

An obvious irony is that Russia under communism was atheist. Public propagation of religion was a punishable crime. In Brest Border: my open diary in Jan. 2008, I wrote about the persecution and imprisonment of Hare Krishna devotees in the Soviet days. Back then, Amnesty called them the prisoners of conscience. Russians can now be charged for hurting the feelings of the religious people. There doesn’t seem to be any law against hurting the feelings of atheists.

Another curious thing is that Ruslan’s offensive video clips are still in the web. Russian churchgoers, please open the links, watch Sokolovsky, and get insulted and possibly humiliated. Material capable of spreading such hatred and enmity is still accessible to anyone eight months after Sokolovsky’s arrest. Is that not bizarre?  

Sokolovsky would be classified as a dissident, someone strongly opposing established doctrines and practices. The Internet is flooded with hate, swear words, blasphemy. Why Sokolovsky? Because his thinking reached a scale. More than one million people watched his clip. As soon as a provocative thinker or writer reaches large numbers, he becomes a dissident. A dissident’s success or fame can put him in danger.

Amnesty International and others who cry against such processes actually may be doing a disservice to the accused. Russia is a proud nation. It doesn’t want to be perceived as deciding Russian cases under the pressure of human rights or other organisations from the west.

That the trial was transmitted live and the video clips in question are still accessible is a welcome democratic step. The Russian state has run a risk of making Sokolovsky a hero (or a martyr). Though he has used foul language to please his target viewers, Sokolovsky comes across as a rational, articulate, well-read and strong-minded person. The Church offered to withdraw the case if he repented. Sokolovsky refused to accept his guilt or ask the church for forgiveness.

The Verdict

What is the judge supposed to do?

She can dismiss the case and release Sokolovsky. This is nearly impossible. Four investigators were appointed on the case. In a region where 30,000 cases of significant gravity remain pending, much effort has been invested in this case. Special prosecutors were appointed, witnesses for the prosecution invited. One simply can’t dismiss a case after all that. Moreover, dismissing the case would be a victory for Amnesty International and all those western critics. Russia must define its freedom of expression not by the standards of the west.

It would be good if Sokolovsky gets a suspended sentence. As a condition, he may be asked to stop sacrilegious video-blogging. Such a reprieve, though, will offend the Orthodox Church. Sokolovksy has refused to repent. In the absence of repentance, the Church will expect real punishment. Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state must help one another to keep their respective powers intact.

The most likely outcome is a two-year imprisonment and a fine. That way, future dissidents are deterred as well. Later, once Ruslan has tested enough of prison life, a presidential pardon can be issued. President Putin is likely to be re-elected in March 2018. He can then pardon Ruslan before the start of the 2018 FIFA world cup in Russia. That will stop Amnesty International lobbying for a World Cup boycott from the west.

Ravi 

Select webography

1.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMn1yahGYk The clip called “Pokemon go prank” with English subtitles. The main reason for the case. Warning: includes swear words.

2.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfPC-KhPCv4 10-minute concluding speech of Sokolovsky (in Russian).

3.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEg0MCSr098 A religious witness explaining how she was insulted and humiliated. (In Russian) Fairly amusing to watch the exchange.

4.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmRtwopybU0 a variety of insulted witnesses. The priest confirms the clip insulted each and every orthodox Christian. (in Russian)

5.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yIHqhWogeo Almost a full length film. Interrogation of Sokolovsky. Gives us a good idea about the court process in Russia. (in Russian)

6.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QVGM7rGd8o Mayor of Yekaterinburg, a very articulate person,  says this case shouldn’t have come to the court in a secular state. (in Russian)

R.

The Jewish Question: Part Five

The Second World War ended in 1945 with a big bang made by two nuclear bombs. Seventy-two years later we continue to live in the shadow of that war.

World War Victors

United Nations Security Council is the UN arm responsible for world peace and security. It can pass resolutions to condemn the unacceptable behaviour of nations, order UN sanctions, send peacekeeping forces, or announce UN military actions. These resolutions, once passed, are binding on all UN members, and there are 193 of them. However, five members; USA, UK, France, Russia and China enjoy special powers called ‘veto’. A ‘no’ from any one of these countries means the resolution is sent to the dustbin. Why do they have such an extraordinary privilege? Because they won the Second World War.

The Axis powers- Germany (Hitler), Italy (Mussolini) and Japan (Emperor Hirohito) were soundly defeated. USA (Truman), UK (Churchill), USSR (Stalin) and China (Chiang Kai-Shek) declared themselves as the four policemen for future global peace. At Churchill’s insistence, France, a fellow colonial power, was added to this exclusive club. These five countries are the only ones allowed to freely and officially develop, build up, proliferate, test and use nuclear weapons. An equally devastating weapon in their possession is veto power.

The Veto Power

UK and France haven’t used a veto since the end of the Cold War. Before that, UK primarily used it to protect the interests of the ruling Whites in South Africa. Since 1970, China has used it 11 times, USSR/Russia 23 times and the USA 79 times. Veto power makes these countries immune to any UN actions or criticism. When the USA invaded Panama (1989), the USA/UK/France blocked the resolution to condemn the USA and order withdrawal of its forces. Similarly, when Russia attacked Georgia (2009) and took over Crimea (2014), UN could neither condemn nor act because Russia vetoed the resolutions. In theory; USA, Russia, China, UK and France can - with impunity - invade other countries, indulge in war crimes, or commit genocides and the UN Security Council can’t even condemn them.

The great powers, the bullies who won the Second World War, can also protect their “clients” by use of a veto. This month, on 12 April, Russia blocked a UN resolution to condemn Assad over the chemical gas incident, just as it has vetoed every resolution on Syria since 2011. Not surprisingly, the UN can’t condemn, impose sanctions, begin UN military action or punish Assad’s regime in any manner. Syria is Russia’s client.

Since 1982, USA has used its veto power on 32 occasions to block resolutions concerning Israel. All attempts of UN to declare sanctions or initiate action to remove illegal settlements have been frustrated by the USA veto. Not only that, USA has blocked all UN attempts to bring Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s agenda. Israel is America’s client.

America’s Israel obsession

Since World War II, Israel is the largest recipient of US Aid, having received more than 140 billion USD. Currently, it receives 3 billion USD per annum, equivalent of a 500 USD per year subsidy to each Israeli citizen. (Another 38 billion US Dollars are committed in aid between 2019-2028). In addition, the USA promises to raise 500 million $ per annum for joint US-Israeli missile defense programs.

*****

In May 1998, I was attending an international conference in the UK. At the breakfast table I was surrounded by my colleagues, many of them British and Americans. India’s nuclear tests the previous day were the headlines in the British newspapers. I was the only Indian in that gathering. I remember some of them looking at me with scorn, as if I was responsible for the crime of testing a nuclear weapon. One British guy had the nerve to ask me if I was not ashamed. I said I am a pacifist, and denounce all weapons. However, I denounce discrimination and double standards as well. I’m glad, I said, that India has reduced the possibility of you guys launching a nuclear attack against us.

This hypocrisy continues, as we have seen in the last few years, with Iran and North Korea. One country’s privilege is another country’s crime.

Against this backdrop, is it not strange that we rarely hear about Israel being a nuclear state? Israel has nuclear capacity for more than fifty years, having conducted its first tests in the 1960s. In fact, Iran, over the years, has attempted to develop nuclear capabilities because of the nuclear Israel.

*****

Israel is the USA’s most pampered protégé with financial aid, diplomatic support (veto power) and secret backing for its nuclear programme. What could be the reasons for such an obsession?

During the Cold War, one could argue such support was justified. Syria and Egypt were Soviet clients. To counter that, America thought Israel to be the right base in the Middle East. Israel is modern, fairly prosperous and the only country in the Middle East that may be called a western democracy.

Once the Cold War was over, the War on Terror began. America’s military establishment always needs a long-term enemy for its survival and growth. Islamic terrorism replaced communism as America’s arch-enemy. USA and Israel share that enemy (their combined effort possibly created Islamic terrorism, but that’s another issue). However, this collaboration doesn’t excuse Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its unstoppable illegal settlements, its inhuman blockade of the Gaza strip. Also, Israel’s actual help in any Middle East war is minimal. It is the USA which has taken upon itself the job of protecting and subsidizing Israel.  That support is vastly disproportionate to what the USA gets out of it.

An obsession practised for a long time turns into an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). The OCD patient can’t control the obsession, even when he knows it’s wrong. As I write these words, the American senate has published a letter to the UN secretary-general signed by each of the 100 senators individually. The letter complains about the UN’s anti-Israel bias, agenda, and actions of certain UN bodies reinforcing anti-Semitism. The US Senate urges the UN to improve UN’s treatment of Israel. UN should eliminate or reform funds and committees that criticise Israel. Ask UNESCO to not criticise Israel and stop doubting the Jewish and Christian connection to Jerusalem. UN’s Human Rights Council (UNHRC) targeting Israel must stop. It’s worth reading this letter in its entirety to understand America’s OCD with Israel. Writing a letter to the UN demanding better treatment of Israel was the most important item for one hundred US senators on the 100^th day of Trump in office.

Israel’s position

Israel, full of clever and intelligent people, has conceived a brilliant equation.

Criticism of Israel = Anti-Semitism

This equation has been propagated worldwide, and anybody criticising Israel’s policy or America’s supporting it is reminded of the historical persecution of Jews and the holocaust. The above letter also threatens the UN with this equation.

Israel’s position is very clear and unambiguous. Israel wants for itself every inch of land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. It would love for all Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to disappear by magic. It’s a difficult task in the 21^st century; earlier they could have been killed or expelled. Israel’s strategy is to keep the Palestinian territories occupied, continue building of settlements, raise Iran as a bogey, lobby the USA for continued support, give lip service to the universal condemnation and in case of a rare US criticism, sulk and build more settlements. Israel prefers to live with a chronic virus rather than go for an unpleasant surgery.  

In February, Donald Trump took a U-turn on the two-state solution, and asked Netanyahu to sort out the issue with the Palestinians. Trump said he likes the solution both parties like. A bully and his victim go to the school director. The school director tells the bully and the victim to sort out the bullying problem themselves.

South Africa and Israel

The reason the US senators united to write a letter to the UN was a UNHRC report applying the word apartheid to Israel. I can imagine Netanyahu, on reading the report, calling Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner angrily. Kushner immediately demanding Nikki Haley (the US ambassador to the UN) write a protest letter, and reminding the senators that not signing such a letter would be tantamount to anti-Semitism.  

Indeed, using the word apartheid to the Israel situation would be a devaluation of that word. Israel, inside its boundaries, has a democratic framework. One fifth of its population is Arabs who mingle with the Israelis and have several legal rights. In the occupied territories, West Bank and Gaza, Israel can be accused of segregation but the intent seems to be land-grabbing rather than racial apartheid.

However, the South African case is important when we talk of a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. South African apartheid was so inhuman and blatantly cruel that most of the world had boycotted and isolated them. From 1973 to 1988, for fifteen valuable years, USA and UK (and on some resolutions France) used their veto power to block every UN resolution demanding action against South Africa. USA and UK continued trading with South Africa to preserve their business interests. The White rulers of South Africa needed protection from black masses intent on resisting apartheid. Nelson Mandela was portrayed as a Marxist and imprisoned for 27 years. In the Cold War years, it was important for Reagan and Thatcher to ensure South Africa doesn’t turn communist.

Once America understood the imminent collapse of communism, it lost interest in South Africa. USA’s withdrawal of support spelt an end to the apartheid. Mandela was released and became the first black president.

South Africa’s outgoing president F.W.de Klerk said: “I apologise in my capacity as leader of the NP to the millions who suffered wrenching disruption of forced removals; who suffered the shame of being arrested for pass law offences; who over the decades suffered the indignities and humiliation of racial discrimination.”

Adriaan Vlok, the outgoing law minister, washed the feet of apartheid victim Frank Chikane (whom Vlok had plotted to assassinate earlier) in an act of public apology for the wrongs of the apartheid regime.

Despite the whole world sensing the injustice and cruelty in South African apartheid, it continued from 1948 to 1991- for forty four years, partly due to the diplomatic support of the U.S. through its veto power.

Israel Palestine solution

Israel or Palestinians are incapable of resolving their problems, because one is a settler colonialist and the others are in the occupied territory. The UN is incapable because of the veto power wielded by the World War II victory. United States of America is the only party which can resolve the issue. South Africa is not the only case study. USA (Clinton) withdrew its support for Suharto, the Indonesian dictator, and East Timor became independent quickly.

Though many analysts think the one-state solution as the only possibility, I disagree. If two-state solution is improbable, one-state solution is impossible. For Jews to live as a minority in a Jewish state is an oxymoron. Arabs outnumbering the Jews in a single state is a much bigger existential threat for Israel than a nuclear Iran. In my view, the one-state solution is an impractical fantasy.

If not for the USA veto shield, the two-state solution could have happened long ago. At the end of the Cold War, USA withdrew support for many client states. At some point, USA will realise the folly of continuing the War in the Middle East. Maybe that point will be reached when oil loses its historical importance. When that happens, USA simply needs to withdraw its support to Israel, stop giving aid and stop using its veto protection. Israel will then be forced to abandon all the settlements, accept a new Palestinian State, accept the partition of Jerusalem, free the Gaza strip. If the unimaginable could happen in South Africa, it also can in Israel.

That point, though, is unlikely to be reached while Donald Trump is the president of the USA.

Ravi  

Select Bibliography

1.       http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/

Jewish virtual library: Anything you need to know from Anti-Semitism to Zionism. The Jew perspective. By American-Israeli Cooperative enterprise (AICE)

2.      http://zionism-israel.com/

In defence of Zionism and Israel

3.      http://web.archive.org/web/20070205000955/http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu:80/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign policy. An interesting document that says how the Jewish lobby in the US has systematically made the two countries the closest friends.

4.      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/why-israel-is-nothing-like-apartheid-south-africa.html?_r=0

In this New York Times op-ed from last month, Benjamin Portgrud, a black South African who lives in Jerusalem, compares South Africa and Israel and says Israel is no apartheid state.

5.      http://www.alhaq.org/attachments/article/236/Occupation_Colonialism_Apartheid-FullStudy.pdf

Occupation, colonialism, Apartheid? A re-assessment of Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.

6.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0kgG1_6Qn0

Noam Chomsky: lecture at the Brown University: US Israeli crimes against Palestinians

7.      https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f6c7c142-8655-4c34-907b-ffe91b033f34/83A98BDD8379F7A35D6207DCB0D74B38.4-27-2017-rubio-coons-ltr-to-unsg-re-israel.pdf

A strong-worded letter signed by all 100 senators on 27 April, 2017 asking UN to not criticize Israel.

R. 

The Jewish Question: Part Four

Whose problem is it?

It may be true that every problem has a solution. In international politics, every problem has a solution provided those capable of solving it are willing to solve it. Whose problem is the Israel-Palestine conflict?

It is definitely the primary problem of the Palestinians. Since 1948, they are either refugees in exile, citizens with no civil rights in occupied territories or open-air prisoners in Gaza. With the growing anti-Islam sentiment in the non-Muslim world, rift between Iran and other Arab nations, and burning Syria next door; media space for the Palestine problem is shrinking.

It’s also Israel’s problem. The state of Israel is only partially recognised and partially legal. Jerusalem, its supposed capital, does not have a single embassy. Israel is prone to attacks from suicide bombers and smuggled rockets. When a democratic nation requires the continued presence of an army to maintain peace, there is something terribly wrong with it.

Americans may not realise it, but Israel is their self-inflicted problem created by its global interference strategy. On 09/11, nearly 3000 Americans- most of them civilians- lost their lives partly as a consequence of America’s support for Israel. Before planning the attack, Usama Bin Laden, a fairly logical man for a terrorist, had opened all his cards in a 1998 fatwa. Talking about the Crusader-Zionist alliance, the fatwa said: “If the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.” UBL went on to accuse America of destroying and fragmenting Iraq and other Arab states in the neighbourhood to guarantee Israel’s survival. The fatwa asked the followers of Allah to kill Americans, civilian and military, to liberate the mosque in Jerusalem and to kick out American armies from the land of Islam. (In 2003, America quietly complied with one of the Fatwa conditions by removing its military bases from Saudi Arabia). Though UBL is dead, and Al-Qaeda weak, this anger and sentiment is shared by millions of Muslims.

Israel-Palestine is everybody’s problem, including yours and mine. We are now an indivisible part of the international community. Our daily lives are affected by international politics as never before. Some foreign power decides if I can carry my laptop or a bottle of water on a flight. All of us live in places which can be targeted by nuclear or ‘mother-of-all bombs’. Just because the Israel-Palestine issue is not located next door; our willingness to ignore it or pass superficial judgement based on whichever biased media we are exposed to, may result in our silent support for injustice. Mute (or dumb) support allows a precedent to be set. And then a similar injustice may be perpetrated on us. By then it will be too late to wake up and begin protesting.

Opinions are formed by a vocal minority, not by a silent majority.

Two-state solution

Since 1947, a two-state solution has been discussed for the Israel-Palestine issue. As mentioned in an earlier part, the UN had offered to split Palestine into three parts. (a) A Jewish state (b) An Arab state and (c) Jerusalem governed by an international body. This partition would have happened at the same time as the birth of Israel. In 1948, the offer, to give the Palestinians 44% of the land that was essentially theirs, was considered so outrageous that Palestinians had refused it. With the passage of time, and Israel’s continuous capture of land through war conquests, military encroachment, annexation and settlements, Palestinians regretted not accepting the 1948 offer.  When a thief tries to rob you, you must first try to recover whatever you can. In hindsight, Palestinians would have been better off accepting the 1948 partition, and then fighting for the remaining stolen land. Yasser Arafat woke up to that fact, pointed to the 1948 partition proposal, and declared Palestinian independence in 1988. This was only symbolic, as Arafat, Palestine’s first president, had to form a government in exile. The flip side of acknowledging the 40-year old partition proposal was that for the first time the Palestinians unwittingly accepted the existence, if not legitimacy, of the state of Israel. In 2012, the United Nations offered a “non-member observer status” to Palestine, a state that governs no geography.

What is the two-state solution?

The two-state solution has three critical elements:

a.      Return to pre-1967 borders

b.      East Jerusalem in Palestine

c.       Palestinians’ right of return.

Return to pre-1967 borders

Acceptance of the original partition plan (1948) means drawing the borders as they were in 1948. However, that is considered more unrealistic than a return to the 1967 borders. Since the six-day war in June 1967, Israel occupied the Palestinian territories including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The occupation and the settlements are termed illegal. Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories and evacuate the settlements. This is the view of the United Nations and the Palestinians. Israel doesn’t agree with it.

In 1948, the population of Israel was 800,000. By 1967, it had grown to 2.7 million. Today, it is 8.7 million.

Israel has the highest fertility rate (3.1 children per woman) in the developed world. This, of course, can’t be an excuse for settling on Palestinian territories, where fertility rates are much higher. However, for Israel, immigration is as big a factor as biological growth. Since 1989, following the collapse of communism, nearly 1 million Jews have migrated to Israel from the former USSR. Between 1967 and today, Israel’s population has grown by 6 million. The West Bank has 600,000 settlers, with an enjoyable life. The settlements are not in tents or temporary housing. They contain posh apartments, shopping malls, schools, theatres, and clubs. Most Jewish immigrants have moved there because of the quality of life; a West Bank settlement looks like New Jersey, even better. Israelis and Palestinians are not clearly separated like East Berlin and West Berlin were. Israeli settlements are spread throughout the West Bank, many criss-cross with Palestinian villages. The notion of evacuating the settlements is scary for Israel. Where do you place the 600,000 residents of the West Bank?

Over the decades, the settler population has grown dramatically (settler colonialism), and Israel continues to build more settlements. It has now reached a number where the potential re-settling of the settlers may produce an unmanageable crisis for Israel. Ariel Sharon had once said: “Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can’t build a house and have children? What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?”

East Jerusalem in Palestine

The 1949 Armistice agreement at the end of the Arab-Israeli war split Jerusalem, keeping its west part with Israel and the East with Jordan (now Palestine). Israel occupied and annexed East Jerusalem, and it must be returned to the state of Palestine. East Jerusalem will become the capital of Palestine. The Muslim and Christian quarters and the temple mount (Haram esh-Sharif) will be under Palestinian sovereignty. This is the view of the United Nations and the Palestinians. Israel doesn’t agree with it.

From Israel’s viewpoint, Jerusalem is indivisible. It belongs to Israel. Jerusalem is the basis of the birth of Israel. Undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. No question of giving part of it to the Palestinians.

Palestinians’ right of return

UN considers the right of return to the home from which you were expelled a natural human right. In the 1948 and 1967 wars an estimated 900,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes. They and their descendents have been living as refugees abroad- many without any citizenship. The total number (surviving refugees plus descendents) is estimated to be 5 million. They have a right to return to their homes seized by Israel. Those who opt not to return should be monetarily compensated by Israel. This is the view of the United Nations and the Palestinians. Israel doesn’t agree with it. 

Israel thinks the notion of accommodating or compensating 5 million Palestinians is a fantasy, a blue sky negotiation tactic. It’s impractical to bring back to their homes people expelled fifty or seventy years ago. (It’s perfectly practical and legitimate to return to a land from which you were expelled 3000 years ago as stated in a story, but the same can’t be done if it happened factually 50-70 years ago).

The other argument is that 900,000 Jews were also expelled from the Arab lands during the Arab-Israel war. Nobody is talking about compensating them. This is, indeed, a valid argument – with one difference. Jewish refugees are now citizens of Israel (or USA), the Palestine refugees remain stateless.

*****

In relation to American politics, you may have recently heard the term “filibuster”, the right to an endless debate. You keep talking about a bill for so long, that it dies before it can be voted on. The two-state solution has been filibustered.

One state solution

If you can’t separate them, why not unite them?

The name of the unified state is not known or discussed. It could be called “Israelopalestine” (like Czechoslovakia), who knows. Palestinians are so desperate; I think they will accept Israel as a name for the combined state. In a single state, two of the three problems narrated above - going back to the 1967 borders and splitting of Jerusalem disappear. The Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to live in their settlements. Jerusalem becomes the capital of the unified state. Fences and walls can be removed; people can start moving freely across the entire territory of Israel and occupied territories. Israel is sandwiched between Gaza and the West Bank. That matters in a two state theory, where the Palestine state is split. A single state solves that problem.

Many supporters of this solution point out, de facto it’s a single state today, entirely controlled by Israel. This de facto single state and the one state solution are quite different, though.

Today, Arabs in West Bank and Gaza are under occupation. They have no voting rights, no citizenship, and no access to Israeli courts. The West Bank Palestinian villages don’t get permits to build gyms, whereas their illegal Jewish neighbours have posh sports facilities.

What is the one state solution?

a.      Israel and the Palestine territories (occupied by Israel) form a single bi-national democratic state.

b.      All citizens - Jews, Arabs or others, would be equal citizens of the state with equal voting rights.

Bi-national democratic state

Israel calls itself a “Jewish democratic state.”

By the end of 2017, the combined state will have 6.9 million Jews (Israel), and believe it or not 6.9 million Arabs (Israel+ West Bank+ Gaza strip). The fertility rate of Arabs is higher than that of Jews. In future years, Israel fears, Jews will be in minority. Israel can’t continue to be a Jewish state.

Equal rights

The alternative is to deny the Arabs equal rights, treat them as second-class citizens. Israel currently has 20% Arabs who are Israeli citizens. Though Israel claims to be a western democracy, it has no “civil” marriages; all marriages are “religious”. The groom and bride must belong to the same religion if they wish to get married. (Irish women must go abroad to get abortions done and mixed-faith Israelis must go abroad to get married). In this sense, the Jewish laws are stronger than secularism or democracy.

One state solution, therefore, dictates that Israel can be either Jewish (by denying Arabs equal rights) or democratic (no longer a dominant majority) but not both. Can Israel accept that?

*****  

In the final chapter next week, I will discuss why the Israel-Palestine problem is not solved till date, and whether it can be solved at all.

Ravi