January 27, 2008
Gandhi's grandson resigns from Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Arun Gandhi's resignation statement:
Today I am announcing my resignation from the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
My statements on the recent Washington Post blog was couched in language that was hurtful and contrary to the principles of nonviolence.
My intention was to generate a healthy discussion on the proliferation of violence. Clearly I did not achieve my goal. Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment. I deeply regret these consequences.
I would like to be part of a healing process. The principles of nonviolence are founded on love, respect, understanding and compassion. It is my sincere hope that this situation will give me and others the opportunity to work together to transform anger and negative emotions, create deeper mutual respect and understanding and build more harmonious communities.
And the offending blog post from the Washington Post:
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.
[Thanks to Ruchira Paul.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 09:43 AM | Permalink
Comments
It is painful to see a man resign to an important post, just because he had the audacity of telling the truth.
The haughty possition of those Jews, fervorous in their zionism, is essential to them, in order to forego any need to reconsider the fact that their "free state" was willed by the USA and the British --- their lackeys in every respect.
They must forget that the land of Israel is not theirs by any means and that some day they will face a new world that will repudiate and, even terminate, their own brand of anti-Palestinian genocidal imperialism.
When you hear thunder you will harvest contempt, if not storms.
Finally,
I'm not going to apologize and remind my Jewish friends that I do love them, because they are Jews.
If I do love them, is because they are decent.
Posted by: Felix E. F. Larocca MD | Jan 27, 2008 10:22:10 AM
Mr. Gandhi was parroting trendy antisemitism but found himself a little ahead of the curve.
From this point on I declare myself an honorary Jew.
Posted by: David Fischer | Jan 27, 2008 11:36:58 AM
It's even more distressing that Arun Gandhi is spouting such pablum:
"Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs."
What exactly does it mean for a nation to "move ahead"? I'm also surprised that he woould mention weapons and bombs - most nations certainly behave as if this were true - otherwise why have armies at all?
"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
What does this mean? What does he mean that they are the "biggest players" - numerically, morally, what? Also, what is this "Culture of Violence" supposed to mean - is he referring to nuclear weapons?
I think the more fitting punishment is to force him to explain what the hell he is talking about. It's one thing to appear to be a bigot, but god forbid he appear to be a fool.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 27, 2008 12:08:31 PM
It is okay to think that Mr. Gandhi is a fool and his rhetoric regarding Israel, overheated.
But I would caution those who see whiffs of anti-Semitism in his utterings. Uncompromising (and sometimes wrong headed) champions of non-violence like Arun Gandhi, Desmond Tutu (and even the Mahatma himself, who too had said some strange things about the Jewish Holocaust and Israel) often tend to see conflicts of power through the prism of colonialism and oppression rather than the classical religious / racial prejudices. I don't think Gandhi is anti-Semitic in the way most people in the west understand it.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 27, 2008 2:00:23 PM
I do not so much see antisemitism in his remarks as sheer ignorance.
If he kew anything at all about the holocaust, he would know it was not simply the work of one bad guy--Hitler--who somehow managed to get all the good people of Germany to go along with his program.
Jews do not forget the past--that is why they are so tied to the destruction of the Temple so many years ago, and they have"moved on," in many respects. Israel is hardly a nation with only a focus upon the holocaust or the past. Again, if he thinks that he is even more unelightened than I imagined.
Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 27, 2008 2:38:30 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that for many Jews, Jewish identity is indeed dearly entwined with the Holocaust. I had pleasure of meeting Jews from all over the world this past summer, and for almost all of them Jewish persecution, of which they see the Holocaust as a sort of climax, was a major part of their identity. Their Zionism flowed in large part from that.
I find that the conceptualization of "antisemitism" that David uses is his above comment comes from a similar place. The belief that every critical word and mention of the Zionist endeavor is in fact anti-Jewish is, unfortunately, becoming a hallmark of the modern debate.
Gandhi is certainly out of line in one sentence:
Okay, no doubt, the lumping of all Jews with Israel is a pretty over-reaching generalization. Worse, saying they are the biggest players in a culture of violence is just plan ignorance -- on the international stage that award is clearly the U.S's alone. A remark that clearly needs repudiation.
But what about the rest of the short piece? As I've tried to do in comments on previous posts on the conflict, I call on commentators to address the actual substance of Gandhi points. In particular, is there any hope of the Israeli government treating the Palestinians as equals instead of people to be dominated?
It's clear to me that retreat into a fortress will never solve the underlying issues, those that Gandhi start the article with: the identity of persecution has so blinded some Israelis that they now use it to excuse their own occupation and domination.
Don't throw "well, the Palestinians did this..." or "Hamas has to recognize Israel first" excuse lines back. This seems to be Gandhi's whole point here. What can Israel do to positively solve the situation without endless delay? To move beyond the persecution card. There must be positive action, not excuses.
(Yes, I understand this holds one party to higher standard. With greater power comes greater responsibility.)
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jan 27, 2008 6:54:48 PM
You don't have to favor Israel's misguided policies to pity Mr. Ghandi for falling into this foolish phraseology. Failing to differentiate between Jews and Israel is as bad as the often-heard wickedness claiming that terrorism is somehow intrinsic to Islam. He did right to resign. We expect more from these internationl peace figures.
Posted by: Faze | Jan 27, 2008 7:05:44 PM
Cyrus,
The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much substance at all in Arun Gandhi's statements. I'm not being facetious, it is actually hard to tell exactly what he is talking about.
Your attempt at exegesis is possible, but by no means the only interpretation. I think the man is just confused, at least in this post. Spending a lot of time analyzing the statement is not likely to be productive.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 27, 2008 8:07:22 PM
Faze: Except, equating Islam with terrorism frequently has the opposite effect. Here is what I mean.
I asked myself: Does this man, Arun Gandhi, based on his life's work and ideas, not deserve the benefit of the doubt? Should I not silently insert "many" before "Jews" just for this guy? He has already made that clear (and apologized for the ambiguity) in a subsequent statement two weeks ago (on Jan 10th). Why is he still being forced to resign? What's going on here?
The Holocaust justifiably has a singular significance for the Jews. How can it not? I am reminded, however, of the moral clarity of the Jewish historian, Howard Zinn, on respecting the Holocaust:
Posted by: Namit | Jan 27, 2008 8:41:45 PM
Ruchira,
"...champions of non violence such as Arun Gandhi... often tend to see conflicts of power through the prism of colonialism and oppression rather than the classical religious / racial prejudices".
Well, India has been free of colonialism from 1947. Why can't he just get over it and move forward? Why see things in a context that has ceased to exist 60 years ago?
I wonder - perhaps when it is your own past, or your own country's past, it isn't that simple to let go.
Why not suggest to the Palestinians that they "let go" of the (undisputed) trauma of the Naqba (the "catastrophe" as they term it) of 1948? After all, why cling to national traumas?
"I don't think Gandhi is anti-Semitic in the way most people in the west understand it."
What a relief. He's Antisemitic in a different way, unique to his colonialist point of view, or whatever.
The point is simple - when Mr. Ghandi makes statements such as:
"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity", he spawns comments like Mr. Larooca's (MD, apparently) - "They must forget that the land of Israel is not theirs by any means and that some day they will face a new world that will repudiate and, even terminate, their own brand of anti-Palestinian genocidal imperialism."
Now I wonder what the term "terminate" refers to?
If these dastardly Jews are to blame for the "Violence which is eventually going to destroy humanity" it is only logical that we "terminate" them before they succeed in their villainous plans.
Get over yourselves, Gentiles.
We are not the cause of your violence, your greed, your bigotry, your hatred, your fear or your cowardice.
Mr. Ghandi unconvincingly claims in his resignation letter that he wished to foster understanding and "Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment. I deeply regret these consequences."
I feel that he simply didn't hide his antisemitism well enough.
I find Mr. Ghandi's statements to be no different than James Watson's announcement that he was gloomy about the prospects of Africa because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really".
Posted by: dkmy | Jan 28, 2008 3:57:35 AM
dkmy:
Most Indians are not actually hung up on their colonial past. India does not define itself by that trauma. It indeed has moved on. Mr. Gandhi as an individual may not have, since he has made a career out of his grandfather's legacy whose core substance was the non-violent resistance to the British colonial occupation of the Indian subcontinent.
I am not supporting Arun Gandhi's statement in its totality especially the part about Israel and Jews being the "worst offenders" which I find to be factually wrong. I pointed out that his rhetoric is overheated. Did you read what Cyrus wrote? Most observers, with no axe to grind in the Israeli Palestinian conflict see it that way. What skews things against Israel in the eyes of the neutral observer is the deliberately blinkered attitude of the US which has not once shown any inclination to be an honest broker but continues to mediate with a heavy hand in favor of one side.
I do not personally know if Arun Gandhi is anti-Semitic or not - in a classical or modern sense. My point was that most critics of Israel who come from outside the Abrahamic religious mindset, do not usually bear the historical baggage of anti-Semitism. Read what you will in that statement. I don't know which way you want to slice the baloney but for me criticism of the Israeli government's policies does not amount to anti-Semitism. Criticizing Jews because they are Jews, does.
By the way, the name is Gandhi not Ghandi. A common mistake but it still is noteworthy given that the name has been in the public consciousness for more than six decades.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 28, 2008 12:06:41 PM
Ruchira,
I just wanted to correct something you said in your response to dkmy.
"My point was that most critics of Israel who come from outside the Abrahamic religious mindset, do not usually bear the historical baggage of anti-Semitism."
I'd be interested why you say this is true. Japan has entrenched anti-Semitism, for example, for weird historical reasons. (One of the reasons the Japanese WWII government didn't like the Final Solution was that they wanted access to financial markets which they imagined to be controlled by Jews.) South Asia absorbed anti-Semitism through English schooling and literature. China and the Buddhist countries are the only other places with significant numbers of non-Abrahamic religions, and I'm not clear where you get your statistics on anti-Semitism there.
Namit,
The reason I don't give Arun Gandhi the benefit of the doubt is that he hasn't apologized for sounding like a fool. While it is obviously bad for a bigot to be running a human-rights organization, it doesn't seem like a good idea for a fool to be running for one either.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 28, 2008 8:09:51 PM
Hektor,
Let us leave Japan of six decades ago out of this discussion, what with its alignment with Germany in WWII. But in contemporary Japan, the most widespread forms of prejudice seem to be reserved for other Asians rather than for the Jews. The current generation of Japanese has a lot of admiration for Israel, actually.
Where else would you say outside of Muslim countries in south Asia or east Asia is anti-Semitism an entrenched culture? I am not saying that the Asians are somehow more noble than others. But rather anti-Semitism is just not a part of the religious or social conversation and hence not an issue.
Growing up in India, I saw numerous different strains of prejudice. Anti-Semitism was not one of them. Instead, when I was in college in the seventies, the vast majority of the student population (except the card carrying communists) in the universities supported establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel even though there was considerable sympathy for Palestinians. That's is what is difficult for many Americans to comprehend. Israel - Palestine is not a zero sum game for most world citizens. Fairness is the issue. But it seems only the uber zionist or the anti-Semitic points of view get heard.
As for India, although I haven't lived there for many years, my understanding is that if Israel has entered the political conversation at all, it is mostly in a positive way. Ever since the BJP government first took power, many among the right wing saw in Israel a suitable model for dealing with the "Muslim" question.
Yes, I still hold that most non-Muslim south Asians do not subscribe to a culture of anti-Semitism, their English education notwithstanding. Most Asians become acutely aware of this conflict after they emigrate to the US. Some who bring their anti-Muslim prejudices to the table, tend to become staunch supporters of Israel. Others like me, become disenchanted with the one sided US policy. That is where we focus rather than on Israel itself. If my government's policies and my tax dollars were not going towards the perpetuation of a policy of oppression and occupation, I wouldn't care that much. And when I say occupation, I don't mean 1948. I accept the legitimacy of Israel and its right to defend itself against aggression. What I don't like is the continued expansion of territory, illegal settlements and controlling the destiny of an entire population who are not Israeli citizens. Oppression goes on in many parts of the world, including within India itself. Without the overwhelming political, moral and financial support of the US, Israel would be just like any one of them. Negligent for the plight of the oppressed as in India or pro-actively oppressive as in Burma. But no one would much care.
As for Arun Gandhi, his views too must have been formed by US policy rather than anything he may have learnt at his mothers knee. I have seen and heard Gandhi. He is not a very impressive person. But he sings the same tune about any situation he sees as a violation of human rights through violence. He may be daft but he is probably not anti-Semitic.
As for those who may not know the history of Judaism in India, please see my review of Nathan Katz's "Who Are The Jews of India?" Katz is a devout American Jew and a professor of Judaic studies. His views should put to rest the debate whether or not there was or is a culture of anti-Semitism in India.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 28, 2008 10:51:02 PM
I'd like to second Ruchira's comments on Asian anti-Semitism, and on Indian anti-Semitism in particular. There are several forms of prejudice in India, and in the aggregate (whatever that means) I think there is more of the stuff there than there is in the US. However, expecting to find significant anti-Semitism of the European sort in India is a bit like expecting to find significant anti-burakumin sentiment in the US or considerable hatred of Irish Catholics in Paraguay.
Posted by: D | Jan 28, 2008 11:08:38 PM
Hektor,
Should people apologize for sounding like fools? Our honorable president feels threatened by your insinuation. There just might be a knock on your door tonight.
Listen, I have no investment in this guy. Except that he seems not to have a history of bigotry like Watson (dkmy made the comparison); quite the contrary it seems. Ruchira has explained well why his being an anti-Semite is improbable. Yes, he was wrong in calling Israel/Jews the worst offenders in the culture of violence; many others phrases are ill-chosen too. I also disagree with his suggestion that it is better to forget the past and move on. Easy for him to say. If it happens on its own, fine. We can't demand that from a people; we can only demand that a people behave well with others.
I am struck more by all the knee-jerk vitriol his blog post has generated, instead of any meaningful soul-searching that his central point ought to have provoked. Indeed, the extent of the hostile reaction now seems to me more disturbing than what he has actually said.
A factual correction for you: Gandhi wasn't leading a human-rights organization but an academic institute on non-violence hosted at a university. Fortunately, some university elders have been wise enough to agree to soon "provide Arun Gandhi, a leader of the Jewish community and other speakers the opportunity to address the issues raised by Mr. Gandhi's statements and related issues. A University can and should promote dialogue in which we can learn from each other even when the most painful or difficult issues will be discussed."
Posted by: Namit | Jan 29, 2008 1:57:54 AM
Ruchira,
I stand corrected regarding the Ghandi/Gandhi issue.
I also agree with your statement:
"I accept the legitimacy of Israel and its right to defend itself against aggression. What I don't like is the continued expansion of territory, illegal settlements and controlling the destiny of an entire population who are not Israeli citizens."
I also agree that it is entirely possible to criticize the Israeli Government without being labeled an Antisemite.
However, we are discussing a particular case and a particular statement made by the leader of an academic institute dedicated to non violence claiming that "We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."
You state that: "I don't know which way you want to slice the baloney but for me criticism of the Israeli government's policies does not amount to anti-Semitism. Criticizing Jews because they are Jews, does."
Mr. Gandhi clearly criticizes Jews for being Jews in this statement, and that is what I found so objectionable.
As for the roots of his Antisemitism, I can only say that several visits to India have convinced me that it's not from his upbringing nor his country.
I agree with Namit that the university's initiative to have a discussion with Mr. Gandhi and several other speakers regarding this controversy is most welcome.
Posted by: dkmy | Jan 29, 2008 4:50:18 AM
Namit,
It would be nice for the US president to apologize for that. Here's hoping!
I don't think Arun Gandhi is an anti-Semite. But I do think he shouldn't be posting incredibly muddled statements about things he appears to be very confused about. It's still not clear to me what he is talking about. If you speak in a confused matter about things you don't understand, people are going to jump to conclusions. That's what bothered me - has the man learned no discipline?
Everyone else seems to think his central point was very clear - but to me it is not clear what his central point is. I wasn't able to discern one.
At least now he will have the opportunity to explain himself in a more prolonged fashion.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 29, 2008 8:13:22 AM
Ruchira,
I'm not talking about Japan of six decades ago - I'm talking about Japan right now. There has been a surprising amount of anti-Semitic literature published in Japan recently and up to the present day. It's deeply weird, and I can't pretend to completely understand it, but it is there.
I'll take your word for it re India, but I've always been surprised at the enthusiasm of Indians for works like Chesterton, etc, which are dripping with anti-Semitic stereotypes.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 29, 2008 8:16:45 AM
Hektor -- It's worse than than you know. Many Indians show a surprising enthusiasm for the works of one Shakespeare, the notorious anti-semite who penned "The Merchant of Venice".
Posted by: Ajay | Jan 29, 2008 12:57:05 PM
Hektor:
I don't think one should make sweeping judgements about people's prejudices based on their reading habits. (I read a fair amount of crap myself.) For example, I suspect that some of the most regular readers of racist and anti-Semitic literature would be the members of the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center who investigate racism and hate crimes. How one's perspective is changed by one's reading depends a lot on what other reinforcements are out there in the media, within the family and in the national dialogue.
So, when you presume a culture of possible anti-Semitism among English educated Indians who have read G.K. Chesterton, I would add that the same folks may also have been avid readers of Kipling, McCauley, Mayo and Churchill. That does not automatically make them fans of imperialism. Moreover, Chesterton's anti-Semitism was a mixed bag and it has been disputed by none other than the ADL and the early Zionists. GKC didn't criticize Jews as persons or Judaism as a faith. He found Judaic culture to be a poor fit within European Christian communities and that made him a supporter of an independent Jewish state. I am curious about your Indian friends. They read Chesterton? Either they are all students of early 20th century British literature or they belong to a geriatric set. GKC was popular with my parents' generation. Most of my contemporaries haven't read him at any great length. (I only read his Father Brown stories after I was introduced to them by a mystery loving uncle.) Even then, the elders that I knew who had read GKC, didn't seem to have been influenced by the anti-Semitism that you claim pervades his writings.
As for Japan, I am not intimately familiar with what passes for contemporary reading there. But I know that Japan is a very faddish country. Anything that is touted as the latest trend anywhere in the world, be it Vedic math, blanket generalizations based on race, character analysis by blood group or left or right handedness, finds its way into Japanese media and popular culture. But most people don't take them very seriously and the trend is usually short lived. I have been somewhat intrigued myself by what I saw in Japanese book stores during my few visits to Japan. There are a lot of cartoon books which even the adults read, technical books on a whole array of subjects and very violent forms of pornography. Yet, to go by my Japanese friends and my cursory observation on the street, Japanese people appear to be very polite, peaceful and decorous.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 29, 2008 4:49:24 PM
Hektor:
Here is Gandhi's central point as I see it: Israel has illegally and immorally occupied the lands of others, which it maintains using a vastly superior military force and high walls. Its disproportionate violence and domineering attitude has spawned a poisonous milieu that is unsustainable in the long run. Unless the Jews of Israel reverse course and make both symbolic and real moves towards a peaceful relationship (e.g., sharing technological development), the future of Israel looks bleak.
Reasonable people can disagree with this too. The problem with the reaction against Gandhi is the apparent inability of so many to distinguish him from those who actually hate people for being Jews. If we paint everyone with the same tar brush, we have a problem -- lots of reasonable gentiles (and many moderate Jews) are pissed off with the tar brush holders. For better of worse, given Gandhi's symbolic name, many Indians with no gripes against Jews whatsoever are taking note. And you know how we, the people, are. If Bush's war on terror fuels anti-Americanism, is it far fetched to think this type of reaction might fuel anti-Semitism? If I were a Jewish community leader, I would be very annoyed with the university's action.
If you agree that Gandhi is not an anti-Semite (his university colleagues should know for sure), a fitting response to his "foolish" blog post is a comment disagreeing with him, or a statement by the blog forum owner saying that he disagrees on such and such grounds, debating / accepting apologies, having a beer, and moving on (as it turns out, Gandhi has even apologized for "sounding like a fool" on Jan 10. "my poorly-worded post...").
Instead, he is ejected from the university. Such overreaction has the effect of chilling all debate on the topic. Those who suspect this topic has been made taboo, now have proof. It sends the following message: Beware! Even the slightest loose remark on Israel/Jews will be punished with the severest of force! No matter whose mouth it comes from. This guy was not even tenured so it was easy to push him out. Long live academic freedom.
It strikes me now that the university played a master stroke. It fired the guy, sending a loud and clear warning across academia. Then they announced that, in the future, they'll invite the guy back for an audience with some dubious Jewish leader (god know who he will represent; surely not my progressive Jewish friends) and other speakers for a "hearing". It will make the university seem magnanimous while also completing Gandhi's humiliation in a large public forum. Brilliant, no?
Posted by: Namit | Jan 29, 2008 10:10:26 PM
Namit,
I agree that firing Mr. Gandhi was an over reaction, and that the message perceived by doing so is an attempt to curtail criticism of Israel and Jews. While I found Mr. Gandhi's remarks highly offensive as a Jew (understandably, no one likes to be labeled the agent of human destruction through violence simply because one is born into a certain community), I think that firing him is counter productive.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of what Mr Gandhi actually says regarding the I/P conflict and of the content of that assessment (I particularly do not understand the recurring concept of disproportionate violence. In WWII, 300,000 German civilians were killed, compared to "only" 65,000 English civilians. Should we infer from this that the Germans were in the right? Should Israel use suicidal mass murderers in Palestinian markets and buses to arrive at a so called correct or proportionate quid pro quo? Would we then be lauded as Just in our response?)
Israel has abused it's power and has made many tragic mistakes in it's dealings with the Palestinians. But to lay the blame, as always, solely on one side of the conflict is a gross misunderstanding of the issue. The Palestinians have chosen to wage a war of terror and are reaping the fruits of that decision. Time and again they have squandered opportunities to move forward and have chosen the path of violence and destruction.
Israel has reacted with more violence and destruction, and the endless game of death is being played out with no end in sight.
Do you really think that Mr Gandhi's remarks have contributed anything helpful to this conflict?
Posted by: dkmy | Jan 30, 2008 6:20:35 AM
Ruchira,
Geriatric is such an unfortunate term, though perhaps fair in hindsight, at least for some of them. :)
I'm clearly going to lose this one to people who are better informed, so I'll give you India. But I'd encourage you to read up on the history of anti-Semitic literature in Japan, despite how "decorous" Japanese people appear to you.
Namit,
I guess I don't agree with you on Arun Gandhi's central point. What I took to be his central point was this: "We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity." So explain to me exactly how a culture of violence which is created by Israel and the Jews as the biggest players is going to destroy humanity? That's what I mean when I say that he was foolish in this blog post.
Now, I understand what _you_ view to be the biggest problem in the Israel/Palestine mess, but it's a stretch to say that that was exactly what Gandhi was talking about.
I also don't like your implicit threat here to Jews. Get Gandhi fired and the Indians will come for the Jews (and you said Jews there, not Israelis, just like Gandhi).
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Jan 30, 2008 10:15:33 AM
dkmy:
As I noted, reasonable people can disagree on Gandhi's central point — what it was, what to make of it. My goal is not to defend his views, as I have said, but to question the disproportionate response. I am glad you agree that firing him was an overreaction and can be seen as "an attempt to curtail criticism of Israel and Jews". Gandhi's remarks have evidently not been constructive; the response, however, has been rather illustrative.
Hektor:
I made no threats against anyone, nor did I condone any. You can only come to such a conclusion by a paranoid misconstruing of my words. Going by the news stories, Israel had nothing to do with Gandhi's expulsion. If you read the article I linked to, "the larger Jewish community [in Rochester] had got into the act, asking for Gandhi's resignation from the institute, even urging Rochester University to sever its ties with the institute." My point is only that—as with any group—if some members act in the name of their larger community and do something heavy-handed, some flak and resentment might be directed back at that community. The flip side is also true, with good deeds. Far from ideal, but such is the world of ordinary humans we live in. To be effective, folks need to pay attention and pick their battles and weapons carefully.
Posted by: Namit | Jan 30, 2008 6:11:44 PM
Post a comment