The period following on from the
end of the First World War and until 1948 was the period of release from old
colonial rule for all nations. Note: I exclude non-Arab Africa
because their independence did not become effective until after the Second
World War.
It is more than a curiosity of modern history that the two bookends of colonial independence were Christian Greece (1830) and Jewish Israel (1948), both having suffered under Ottoman (Turkish) misrule. And yet, when we rage against colonialism it is understood to mean Western (usually Christian) colonialism and not Islamic colonialism. In another bizarre twist to the historical narrative, Israel came into existence within the same movement for change that all of the Arab nations did, has treated its minorities better than any one of the Arab (or Muslim) countries have, but is the only minority nation under incessant diplomatic (and military) attack. While many minorities have yet to achieve ethnic self-determination the historical treatment of minorities in the Arab world and beyond leaves no doubt as to the necessity for independence from ongoing colonial rule.
The founding myths / ethos of the
Arab world are inextricably entangled with the foundation myths / ethos of
Islam. It informs every aspect of Arab
society. And this is the problem. A
seventh century CE event rules the hearts and minds of a huge swathe of
twenty-first century humanity.
The relentless drive towards
self-rule that overtook many colonial enterprises coincided with the rise of
radical political thought (both Left and Right). Neither saw the colonies as worthy of
self-determination but because intellectuals within the colonies inevitably
spoke the language of ‘the masters’ they read and absorbed the intellectual
currents of the time.
The Arab world was infused with a
mixture of fascist and fundamentalist streams of thought. The Muslim
Brotherhood, founded in 1928, had elements of both ideological currents as expressed by the Left
and the Right. When the Ottoman Empire
disintegrated towards the end of the First World War it was seen as an
opportunity by rival Arab clans to carve out family empires. The Arab rulers were
granted independent statehood with their borders randomly drawn up by Britain and France. Clans inevitably had
competing imperial claims. Israel was viewed as part of the
fantasy Jordanian Hashemite Empire, the Ba’athist Greater Syrian Empire, the
competing Ba’athist Greater Iraqi Empire and the fantasy empire of the Saudi
kings.
A drive for Islamic renewal
following centuries of dependency on non-Arab rulers manifested itself in an
extremist position that sought conquest and domination.
Add Arab nationalism and fascism to the mix then the possibility that
Jewish self-determination was ever going to be acceptable was frankly delusional.
The concept of an Arab dominated
Islamic global empire has existed since the founding of the Islamic faith in
the 7th Century CE. It is fundamental to a theologically based Arab
world-view. Arab nationalism expressed
itself successfully within a pan-Arab framework because in its denial of
individual national aspirations it neatly tied into the theological
underpinnings of Arab racial supremacy. It created a platform that was
enthusiastically embraced by Arabs everywhere as rival potentates vied for
leadership of the Arab world. Competing arguments
were difficult to summon except in theological terms. In fact it is by riding on a theological
juggernaut that adversarial racial groups such as Turkey
and Iran
have been able to successfully re-invigorate their geopolitical ambitions.
Communism embraced Arab
nationalism because it provided a competing ideology to Western Capitalism and
which, through Arab adoption of communist rhetoric made it a useful ally
against the West.
From the great destruction by the
Romans in 135 CE through the cataclysmic events of the Crusades and until the
17th century when Jews again began a mass movement of return, historically,
Jews continuously inhabited the Holy Land.
They never left the country but their circumstances did change dramatically
over almost two millennia. As a minority they were sometimes massacred but
usually tolerated. Romans, Arabs, Kurds,
Ottoman Turks and finally, Britain
ruled Israel
with an iron fist or malevolent indifference to the plight of the local population.
Because discrimination is persecution whether it is institutional or physical,
Israeli self-rule was an inevitable concomitant reaction to the anti-colonial
movement. But it was a complication that communism did not need. Nevertheless, it
was first and foremost the USSR
that presented Israel
with de jure recognition.
Israel would have come into
existence as a modern nation state with or without the Shoah. The means of its
tumultuous birth was an issue for diplomatic recognition only. It does not detract
from the need for and therefore the inevitability of Jewish independence that
Israel
achieved on May 15, 1948.
Is Israel a modern colonial outpost of
Western imperialism? The answer is a resounding NO!
No comments:
Post a Comment