Lectures & Seminars - 16 by nurfarashah.

Friday evening offered  couple of choices for anyone looking for a bit of anti-war activity in east London. The Stop The War Coalition organised a candle lit vigil in Whitechapel. I plumped for a meeting called “Gaza: The Martyrs’ Meadows” organised by Easy Talk, which is a website and operates a radio station during Ramadan.  Apologies if the report is a bit sketchy but as far as I could work out there was only one non Muslim in the audience and it would have looked peculiar if I’d sat taking notes.

The first thing to remark on is that it was big for something that had been organised in the same week. Perhaps two hundred people were there and they were virtually all Bangladeshi. Unsurprisingly for an event arranged by a Muslim oriented network the women were at the back and the men were at the front.

First up was Junaid Ahmad who took as his theme “Heroes of Palestine”. His rage was justifiable as he rehearsed the catalogue of the Israeli state’s massacres going back more than half a century but it sometimes got in the way of his argument. His central thesis was that Hamas is doing God’s work and that its fighters, who are guaranteed a place in paradise, are an inspiration to every Muslim.

Next was Haim Bresheeth and it was his second anti-war meeting of the week. An academic at the University of East London he fought three times in the Israeli state’s army and was there to denounce its current war crimes and to offer the anti-Zionist secular Jewish perspective.

image It was Azzam Tamimi I’d particularly wanted to hear. He was addressing the topic “Hamas Bringing death to Gazans or symbol of resistance”. A neater example of a rhetorical question you would look hard to find. The main weakness in his very informative and balanced introduction  – and most of the audience would disagree with this assertion – is that he did not locate the rise of Hamas in the political collapse of the PLO and the impact of the collapse of the Soviet Union on national liberation movements of that type. He presented Hamas as the legitimate representation of the Palestinian  struggle precisely the PLO has made its peace with both imperialism and the Israeli state. For him it was unproblematical that a religiously defined organisation was the vehicle for overthrowing a religiously defined apartheid state. An interesting nuance which was new to me is that the Palestinians don’t want a state. They just want their land, a territory that has seen off half a dozen or more rulers from the Persians to the British.

Tamini was very strong on three particular messages. The first was that anti-Semitism had no place in a campaign to support the Palestinian people. Any attacks of any sort on Jews or Jewish property are wrong. His second point was that the events on September 11 and July 7 were counter-productive and had to be condemned. From that he extrapolated that any action taken by Muslims had to be within the law.

What can we draw from this meeting? The first thing is that the Muslim community in Bethnal Green identifies very strongly with what is happening in Palestine. One young woman paid £250 in an auction to raise funds for the people of Gaza for a painting. The meeting was very receptive to the messages against anti-Semitism which were reinforced by both Yvonne Ridley and Azzam Tamini. Chaim Bresheeth received the only applause of the evening. The audience was using its religion to interpret what was happening in the world and, along with the speakers, seemed to share the conclusion that Hamas’ election wins makes it  the legitimate government in Gaza, that it is right for them to resist the siege and the theft of Palestinian land and that the British government is an accomplice in the Israeli state’s war crimes. It’s hard to find fault with that reasoning.

9 responses to “Gaza: The Martyrs' Meadows”

  1. Very hard to fault that reasoning. I’m more and more convinced that the old “one democratic secular state” line was wrong (i.e. we’re all in favour of your self-determination, as long as you determine to do what we have already determined is acceptable to us).

    Like

  2. Haim’s blog is essential, why not organise another meeting with him as a speaker, I am sure GL and SR comrades would support such an event..

    http://gaza.haimbresheeth.com/

    take a look and link

    Like

  3. I don’t follow your reasoning Jodley.

    Like

  4. Jodley’s probably trying to say that it’s not for us to suggest the outcome, merely to support the right of self-determination.

    As for Israel being religiously defined… There’s actually a very high level of atheism in Israel, which always makes me wonder if it isn’t better to talk about a racially-defined state, with Israeli Arabs coming second and those living in the so-called Palestinian territories coming third. Problematic is not the overt religiousity of Hamas, but the Judeophobic narrative of its charter.

    I wonder if Hamas will come to arrive at the position of Hezbollah after the 2006 war in Lebanon – pledging to be a national resistance, rather than of one religious denomination, ethnicity etc.

    Like

  5. “An interesting nuance which was new to me is that the Palestinians don’t want a state. They just want their land, a territory that has seen off half a dozen or more rulers from the Persians to the British.”

    Pan Islamists don’t recognise the validity of the nation state. They see secular Arab nationalism as having been a failure. But there are certain problems with his historical views as expressed here. Since it was the forces of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius that saw off the Persians and it was the Israelis that “saw off” the British! Still, it’s interesting to see that there’s a general opening up going on. Which has to be reflected at the level of political programme to be really meaningful.

    Like

  6. and indeed it was the British who saw off the Turks and the Turks who saw off the Arabs.

    Like

  7. Charliemarks: a unified secular state would in effect be self-determination for the Palestinian majority (refugees, Gazan and West Bank pops. and `Israelie Arabs’) but it would also allow followers of the jewish faith freedom to practise their religion. The Zionist two-state peace process is the road to bantustans, ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing for the Palestinians not self-determination. Jodley I fear is misunderestimating the situation to some peculiar end she does not make clear. Nevermind, at least, as Rory Bremner says in Bush-speak, today is the `end of an error’.

    Like

  8. I am not misunderstanding the situation at all – to any end, peculiar or not. I am simply not pretending an understanding of the situation that I don’t have.

    The left indulges in too many “if I ruled the world” fantasies. By all means spend time fully elaborating item IV.28.iii on your detailed plan for the one-state/two-state/binational/democratic secular/united arab socialist republic which will exist after the World Revolution (aka the coming of Moshiach, first or second time, take your pick).

    In the meantime and back to reality, Palestinians living now in Israel urgently require civil rights vis-a-vis Jews. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza urgently require an end to occupation and the dismantling of settlements. Palestinian refugees in the Occupied Territories and the diaspora require their right of return recognized, with return facilitated for those that want it and reparations for those who wish to remain in other countries. Palestinians collectively also have a right to self-determination (though it is entirely plausible that different parts of the Palestinian people would want to determine themselves in different, and possibly conflicting, ways).

    Therefore, beyond stating the immediate and obvious concerns, I am unwilling to place parameters on the type of state(s) that could or should come into being in order to make these various things possible and correct historic and ongoing injustices of mammoth proportions.

    Incidentally, I don’t believe a state need be secular in order to allow “followers of the jewish faith freedom to practise their religion”: contrast the Islamic Republic of Iran with in the secular USSR. (This is just to point out that your assumptions about freedom of religion are not necessarily correct, not to imply my support for theocracies in general or the Islamic Republic of Iran in particular).

    Like

  9. Ooops, sorry you said I was misunderestimating the situation. Since I don’t know what that is I probably should not have responded.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending