1947 And All That
I can’t claim by any means to be especially knowledgeable about Pakistan. Most of what I know comes from a single book that I picked up essentially on autopilot when it was published (I think a year after 9-11) and finally got around to reading a couple of years later. Nonetheless, my ignorance hasn’t stopped me from being a chronic Pakistanophobe, for all the usual reasons.
It’s striking, though, for this pro-Israel Pakistanophobe to contemplate the parallels between the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Both were created in 1947; though Israel didn’t actually declare independence until May, 1948, it was voted into existence by the UN in November, 1947.
Both were former British-administered territories. Both were the result of partitions of formerly integral territories. Both states fought wars within their first year of existence (Israel’s War of Independence and Pakistan’s First Kashmir War) in part to establish control over territory deemed rightfully theirs that was not awarded to them in partition. And both states failed (Israel was unable to capture the entirety of Jerusalem in 1948-49, and Pakistan was unable to gain control of all of Kashmir).
Both states had to absorb enormous numbers of refugees from neighboring states within the first few months and years of their existences as independent states (in Pakistan’s case, from India; in Israel’s, from the Arab states). And this influx profoundly shaped the national identity of both states (the relative position of newcomers and oldtimers in Pakistan was a live issue for decades, and the divide between Sephardi and Ashkenazi in Israel remains a live issue decades after intermarriage between the two groups became relatively common).
Both states have fought multiple wars with their neighbors, and have developed a kind of rational paranoia about threats to their national survival. Indeed, it is striking that while many regimes fear for their survival, and many nations have at times believed that there were broad international conspiracies to humiliate them, relatively few nation-states fret about the prospects of national survival in the way that Israel and Pakistan have. In any event, both states have also successfully pursued nuclear weapons as the ultimate insurance against national extinction.
In both states, democratic norms that were fairly robust upon founding have been eroded because of the powerful position of the military in national life. This is manifest in Pakistan, where the Musharraf dictatorship has just entered a new and more blatant phase. But it is also true, though more subtly true, in Israel, where generals have gotten progressively more political, the time-frame for moving from the army to the government has gotten progressively shorter, and the nation’s willingness to trust a non-general with political power continues to decline (and Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz have, by their records in office, done rather too much to confirm the wisdom of this national prejudice).
Both states are founded on the proposition that a religious affiliation was really a nationality. This is a bit more complicated in the case of Israel, as the idea of the Jewish people as a unitary entity is rather older than Judaism, and persisted strongly as an ideological matter within the religious tradition down to modern times, but it remains a fact that the Jewish people were substantially divided into wildly divergent groups that did not intermarry, speak the same language, eat the same foods, or indeed have much contact with each other by the time Zionism came along, and that the Jews of the West, at least, had formally abandoned the notion of being a separate nation decades earlier with emancipation. Zionism was at least as much about creating a Jewish nation out of the Jewish people as it was about creating a state or connecting with the land. The “two nations” concept that underlies the creation of Pakistan, meanwhile, struck many observers at the time as absurd, and still seems odd to me today, not least because Islam is constituted so explicitly against the idea that Muslims are an ethnic group as opposed to a group of people who happen to have already attained what is a universal aspirational state.
Moreover, the fact that both states were founded on such a proposition has had profound consequences for both states’ histories. What remained of Pakistan once it lost its eastern half has become steadily more Islamic in character; this is partly due to trends that are widespread in the Muslim world, but as well substantially due to the fact that Pakistan’s basis for existence as a state separate from India is its Muslim character. A secular Pakistan would not have a terribly coherent national narrative. Similarly, Israel’s professed character as a Jewish State has always begged the question: what’s Jewish about it? As Jewish identity and history cannot plausibly be severed from Judaism, and as Israel remains a predominantly secular society (though not nearly so secular as most Western democracies), the State has been unable to establish a stable modus vivendi with the organs of institutional religion, and since the passing of the founding generation has been unable to articulate a national narrative that is persuasive and inspiring and yet refutes the narratives proffered by the various segments of that country’s religious right.
Finally, both states are long-time clients of the United States, major recipients of American military and non-military aid, major allies outside the European theater in the Cold War, and major – but problematic – allies in the War on Terror (in Israel’s case because we fear our obvious close alignment with Israel hurts our position with Arab allies we need to combat terror groups that target Americans; in Pakistan’s case, because organs of the Pakistani government have historically been supportive of those very groups, yet we fear that were the current government to fall we would wind up confronting an overtly hostile regime).
I’m not sure that I mean to suggest anything by the comparison. I could as easily have listed the numerous ways in which the countries differ: Israel has progressively risen in per-capita income, while Pakistan has stagnated; Pakistan is a huge country in terms of population and territory, while Israel is tiny; etc. I could also have pointed out that, until relatively recently, Democratic administrations in America tended to tilt more towards Israel and Republican administrations more towards Pakistan (this Presidency is certainly an exception to the first generalization and partly an exception to the latter).
I guess all I wanted to point out is that the two countries share a certain set of relatively rare historical circumstances, and to lay out my suspicion that most people who pay lots of attention to one country or the other have not thought about the comparison and whether it might shed any particular light on some aspect of either country’s situation.
I believe there are more people who are conscious of these similarities (and their implications) than you might think. One person which comes to mind who likes to draw comparisons between the 2 countries (and Panama) in order to make a whole range of points is Dennis Prager (talk show host). He will often do so to illustrate the doublethink that is so prevalent on both the left and the right (but more so on the left, if you ask me), as you hinted at toward the end of your post there.
On the one hand, you have factions of liberals (many of them New York Jews) who are more than willing to imply that the creation of Israel was a mistake and that the demonstrably historical Palestinian ethnicity (ahem) has a morally superior claim to the land, yet at the same time these same people have absolutely nothing to say about Pakistanian or Panamanian independence. This is of course an absurd position for anyone to maintain, until one realizes that it stems from the oldest form of racism of which we have record: anti-Semitism.
One of Prager’s columns on this topic:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0506/prager053006.php3
— Ricky · Nov 11, 07:54 AM · #
Israel’s War of Independence was first and foremost a fight for continued existence against neighboring nations who intended to extinguish it. While the nation’s leaders were no doubt happy to “gain control over territory…not awarded to them” in the partition, this was decidedly secondary to the main goal of survival. Pakistan’s various border wars have never involved an enemy with the intent to end its separate existence. Israel of course has constantly faced the existential threat in one form or another for its entire history.
— rd · Nov 11, 08:38 AM · #
Ricky: that’s a pretty tendentious piece of Prager’s, I must say, and it’s not at all what I was getting at. Here’s a glaring difference between Israel and Pakistan: there was no Pakistani yishuv, no modern political movement in the late 19th and early 20th century exhorting Muslims to move to Pakistan. At a minimum, you might have noted the converse, that there are at least a few prominent supporters of Israel who have argued that the creation of Pakistan was a mistake, or who have adopted an extremely hawkish pro-Indian line on Pakistan.
rd: those words, “in part” were there for a reason. I’m fully aware that Israel was fighting, as the war’s name implies, for its independence in 1948-1949. That said, the objective of acquiring more territory than had been granted in the UN partition was not secondary; it was primary, understood – correctly – as essential if independence was to be secured against a hostile Arab world. It is one thing to argue that Israeli efforts were fully justified by Arab rejectionism and the invasion by the neighboring states; it is another to pretend that these efforts didn’t take place, or were a happy but unintended consequence of the war. Finally, Pakistan lost a war that was explicitly intended to split the country in two – and look: it’s now two countries. Pakistani rhetoric frequently asserts that India has designed to dismember or destroy Pakistan. Whether or not you think it’s rational for them to feel this way, there do seem to be more than a few Pakistanis who think they are engaged in am existential conflict and that, for example, giving in on Kashmir would mean the breakup of the country.
— Noah Millman · Nov 11, 12:38 PM · #
Well for the record I did imply the reverse when I said that doublethink exists on both the left and the right. However, off the top of my head I cannot think of one person who has made the argument which you outlined (perhaps you might be able to suggest some names to me).
I can, however, think of dozens who are much more ardent supporters of Israel than Pakistan (myself being one), and I can also think of some very good reasons why a person might do so. Not the least among these being, as you pointed out, the yishuv. To my thinking, this is actually a point in favor of Israel’s creation and not against it; pragmatically speaking, creating a nation state for a group of people- wherever they came from and whoever they are- out of what was basically a deserted wasteland until they arrived there is, at the very least, something to be considered. And this was the case with late 19th century Palestine; it was not the case with Pakistan. For this reason, the logic goes so: if one is against the creation of Israel, one ought to also be against the creation of Pakistan. However, one may be oppose the existence of Pakistan and still be logically consistent in supporting Israel- especially if they are not aware of any similar pragmatic reasoning in favor of Pakistan’s existence. As I said, though, I do not hold that position.As far as Prager goes, I can see why you’d find his point to be tendentious, but I don’t consider him to be particularly biased in that regard; he is one of the last people on the planet to scream “racism!”. He actually was one of the few publicly defended Mel Gibson after his apology for his outbursts, and has shown himself to be a pretty level-headed fella in other race related dust ups as well. I find his point to be a pretty sober analysis of the motivations of certain folks.
— Ricky · Nov 11, 02:05 PM · #
<i>Israel of course has constantly faced the existential threat in one form or another for its entire history.</i>
It’s worth noting that Israel is commonly thought of as having acted only in defense in its many wars. The truth is, though, that in all but one of their major wars the Israelis have been the aggressors. This doesn’t in and of itself say whether those actions were justifiable or righteous. But there is a tendency to portray Israel as a beleaguered, peace-loving nation that has only ever defended its borders. The truth is quite different.
— Freddie · Nov 11, 03:44 PM · #
Unfortunately the truth is even more complicated than that, Freddie. Israel is unique in that it gives back the real estate it captures in order to sue for peace.
But it really doesn’t matter. The question is not whether Israel attacked or was provoked or was completely on the defensive- the question is more fundamental than that. There is this idea out there- I do not know where it came from- that it is morally questionable to be on the offensive. Quite the contrary. The pacifist mentality- the aggressor is always the villain and an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind- is the moral equivalent of saying the earth is flat. The question isn’t whether Israel attacks its enemies, the question is, were Israel’s actions in her conflicts justifiable, moral, and necessary.
— Ricky · Nov 11, 05:51 PM · #
“Unfortunately the truth is even more complicated than that, Freddie. Israel is unique in that it gives back the real estate it captures in order to sue for peace.”
Actually, no. It is a violation of the Geneva conventions to annex land acquired through military action, which is precisely what Israel has done since 1967. Israel is unique exactly for the opposite reason that you state— Israel illegally acquires land through war but is protected by the United States from being held responsible for that illegality.
More generally, of course, you’re moving the goalposts. Israel acts only defensively and passively when that characterization suits your political purpose; when it’s pointed out that that’s bogus, suddenly Israel has become a righteous aggressor.
— Freddie · Nov 11, 07:58 PM · #
It’s not moving goal posts to point out the stark moral contrast between the two sides.
If the PLO, Iran, Hezbollah, etc etc decided tomorrow to lay down arms against Israel, Israel would never attack them again, and would even be willing to give away more land to see it happen; indeed they have attempted to do so and been sorry for it.
If Israel decided to lay down arms against the Arab world, they would be attacked immediately with ruthless force.
This doesn’t mean Israel can do no wrong, and it doesn’t mean the Palestinians have no claims against them, but it does mean they deserve the benefit of the doubt from the international community.
— Ricky · Nov 12, 04:49 AM · #
“If the PLO, Iran, Hezbollah, etc etc decided tomorrow to lay down arms against Israel, Israel would never attack them again, and would even be willing to give away more land to see it happen; indeed they have attempted to do so and been sorry for it.”
This is simply contrary to reality. I’m sorry. But you clearly haven’t educated yourself enough to have a serious discussion. Your major contentions in this comment are utterly unsupported by evidence.
We’re drifting past 40 years of an absolutely brutal and illegal occupation in the Palestinian territories. There has been an internationally recognized path to peace for a long, long time. Israel withdraws back to its borders before 1967. A corridor is created between Gaza and the West Bank, with the Palestinians ceding from the West Bank an equal amount of territory as is used in the corridor. Israel removes the sections of the wall that prevent true contiguity in Palestine. Palestinians are given control of their own borders, security and airspace.
This basic plan has been recognized for years as the best path to peace. The United Nations recognizes it. The European Union recognizes it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch support it. But it has never been offered. Israel is not now and has not ever been willing to accept any plan that involves ceding East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian life. They are not willing to give any real authority to a Palestinian government. They are not willing to accede to the basic demand of a viable, contiguous and self-governing Palestine, and so they are not partners in peace.
This statement: “indeed they have attempted to do so and been sorry for it.” is an utter and absolute lie. The Israelis have never made a genuine offer for peace. They didn’t at Camp David, they didn’t at Taba. Until they do, keep your platitudes about what the Israelis are willing to sacrifice for peace, please.
— Freddie · Nov 12, 06:36 AM · #
Your comparison leaves out the fact that the partition of India was extremely bloody. Something like half a million people died by violence over the course of a few months. I’m no Zionist, but I don’t think al Nakba really approaches the same level of tragedy.
jenny
— jenny · Nov 12, 07:05 AM · #
I think we’re simply having a disagreement on the correct interpretation of the facts, which I assure you I am intimately acquainted with, so this will be the last thing I say on the matter. I have been to Israel, lived in Jerusalem for a short time, and know some of the people directly involved, both Arab and Israeli. It is the definition of platitudinous and absurdity to state that “Israel has never made a genuine offer for peace.” They have, and they will again. You simply mean they have not allowed an offer to be dictated to them by an enemy that wishes nothing less than to kill them. It doesn’t matter what the international community recognizes as an acceptable resolution- it only matters what the PA- both Hamas and Fatah- and Israel view as acceptable. And the PA has never once intended to stop at the 1967 borders; by their own admission, their goal has always been the complete destruction of the Jewish state. And as I said, that’s where the real tale is told. The PA intends to destroy them. I know people on both sides, in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. Overwhelmingly, this is the attitude you find: the Jews are pigs and deserve nothing better than death.
— Ricky · Nov 12, 08:44 AM · #