What Would Gandhi Say?

[Communication]

On the Question of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine:

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.


Ghandi's Advise to the Jews on How to Handle Hitler:

Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is...if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep. I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can in the twinkling of an eye be turned into the summer of hope. And what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned into a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will then be a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanised man. The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted the latter to an appreciation of human dignity. They will have rendered service to fellow-Germans and proved their title to be the real Germans as against those who are today dragging, however unknowingly, the German name into the mire.

“To be truly non-violent,” he said, “I must love [my adversary] and pray for him even when he hits me.” The Jews should pray for Hitler. “If even one Jew acted thus, he would save his self-respect and leave an example which, if it became infectious, would save the whole of Jewry and leave a rich heritage to mankind besides.”


Ghandi after the death of Hitler in 1946:

“Hitler,” Gandhi said, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany…”


Deaprting Words

The Jews have a good case. I told Sidney Silverman, the British M.P., that the Jews have a good case. If the Arabs have a claim to Palestine, the Jews have a prior claim because they were there first. Jesus was a Jew. He was the finest flower of Judaism. You can see that from the four stories of the four apostles. They had untutored minds. They told the truth about Jesus. Paul was not a Jew, he was a Greek, he had an oratorical mind, a dialectical mind, and he distorted Jesus. Jesus possessed a great force, the love force, but Christianity became disfigured when it went to the West. It became the religion of kings.”



And thus goes the story of Ghandi and his pacifist prescription for the Jews

http://die_meistersinger.tripod.com/gandhi9.html

[Frans_1]

purring smooth and dead poisonous.

Only way to describe it.

Eg :

The same God rules the Arab heart, who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown in to the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them. They will find the world opinion in the their favor in their religious aspiration.

Yes indeed. Jews should offer themselves to be shot etc. World opinion was and still is in great favour of this and agrees wholeheartedly. Now if only Jews can see how sensible it is.....

If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

That highlighted sentence means : "If the Jews could volunteer themselves for the massacre I imagine, that would be a day of thanksgiving and joy! "

here Jews are compared to South Africa :

It is hardly necessary for me to point out that it is easier for the Jews than for the Czechs to follow my prescription. And they have in the Indian satyagraha campaign in South Africa an exact parallel. There the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany. The persecution had also a religious tinge. President Kruger used to say that the white Christians were the chosen of God and Indians were inferior beings created to serve the whites.

because he follows into this theme by :

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing they way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth.

Maybe its Gandhi who is doing the distorting.

Paul was not a Jew, he was a Greek, he had an oratorical mind, a dialectical mind, and he distorted Jesus.

“I did not entertain the hope… that the Jews would be at once converted to my view,” Gandhi replied. “I should have been satisfied if even one Jew had been fully convinced and converted…

Lets put it another way, shall we ? "Sure, they probably aren't THAT dumb. But if only ONE Jew had been fully convinced to offer himself to be murdered...I would be satisfied." He hates Jews so much that even a single murder of a Jew would be satisfying ? How about 6 million ? What did Jews ever do to him personally ?


All of it can be boiled down to one sentence : "Israel has no right to exist and you Jews the "chosen race" can go straight to h*ll". It's just that he is saying it in a twisted elegant way.

[Frans_1]

and :

But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany … As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

aroused in which way ? like the ultimate turn-on ? but too bad they didn't "throw themselves in the sea and offer themselves for the butchers knife", right? Sounds like some kinky satanist sex game. So (Jews) offered for the butchers knife would be a big turn on for him. They succumbed anyway (disappointingly unexciting).

I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon... He is into the "dungeons and challenging tall gentile Germans" thing, is he ? Does this tall Gentile German chap in Gandhi's fantasy dungeon with Jews offering themselves to be slaughtered by butcher knives, like, wear leather ? ( Jewish guy : " ooh shoot me! O tall Gentile German! or cast me in your Dungeon!)

I can conceive the necessity of the immolation of hundreds, if not thousands, to appease the hunger of dictators. Sufferers need not see the result in their lifetime

The Great Soul Gandhi is wise and compassionate enough to conceive (see) that necessity. How would the immolated hundreds and thousands (and millions) conceive (see) it? Oh, they need not see it (and won't anyways). I get it.

[andak01]

I wrote a speech on this very subject in response to a newspaper editorial calling for the Palestinians to act more like Gandhi.

==============================================
Bismillahi RaHmani RaHeem.

In the name of Allah, the most compassionate, the most merciful. These are the words that every Muslim says at the beginning of every speech. These are the first words we read in the Qur’an. Yet, is the worldview of Islam one of mercy and compassion? One would have to answer a resounding no.

The world demands that Muslims and Islam change and follow a different model. They say we should be more like the secularists or the Christians or the Jews or any other model than what is our own. Recently, several people have written articles demanding that the Palestinians should behave more like Gandhi and use the tools of civil disobedience. Let’s observe that demand from two different aspects. First of all, what would Gandhi do? Second, do we find any model for non-violent protest within the religion of Islam?

Let me read you a quote from Mr. Gandhi himself regarding none other than the creation of a state of Israel.
"But" Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"
And again:
"But in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism... Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"
It is well for us to remember that he himself was the victim of colonial oppression and he may have viewed the state of Israel as another form of such oppression. Never the less, this is a far cry from what was intended by following the example of Gandhi. So, although they say that, we can assume that these people don’t want Palestinians to follow his example in this sense.

So, if they can’t find an example in Gandhi, then who? Let’s travel back in time to the year 628 of the Christian Era, 628 AD. The Muslims, there may have been a couple of thousand in the world at that time, had been driven from Meccah by the persecution of the Quaraish tribe. Many had been tortured to death for refusing to deny their faith. They had fought three major battles, not always with success: Badr, Uhud and the Battle of the Trench. They were vastly outnumbered and their resources were small. And it is at this point the Prophet Mohammad received a vision of making a peaceful pilgrimage to Meccah.

So he set out with a group of around 1500 dressed in the traditional white garb of pilgrims. And when the Quraish heard of their approach, they sent Kalid ibn Walid, a fierce general who never lost a battle his entire life and 200 soldiers. The Muslims diverted their path and stopped to rest in the plain of Hudabaya. Kalid reported back and the Quraish sent a couple of scouts to determine the intentions of the Muslims. In brief, once their intentions were established, a treaty was drawn and I will read you now the wording.
“In your name, O Allah. These are the terms of the truce between Muhammad, the son of Abdullah and Suhayl, the son of Amr (of Mecca).
Both parties have agreed to lay down the burden of war for ten years. During this time, each party shall be safe, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but uprightness and honor shall prevail between them.
The Muslims shall return this year without performing Umrah (the pilgrimage). In the coming year, you may enter it with your companions, staying therein for three days, bearing no arms except the arms of the traveler, with swords remaining in their sheaths.
If a Quraysh person comes to Muhammad (i.e., after accepting Islam) without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him to them, but if one of the Muhammad’s people comes to the Quraysh, he shall not be returned.
Whoever wishes to enter into covenant with Muhammad can do so, and whoever wishes to enter into covenant with the Quraysh can do so.”
So the Muslims could not accept even volunteers from the Quraysh, while the Quraysh could accept volunteers from amongst the Muslims. And this treaty, even though it gave a disadvantage to the Muslims was honored. And in fact, we are held by our religion to honor treaties or promises of this sort regardless of whether they fall to our advantage or not- all that in the name of keeping peace.

So we see, that it is not necessary to look outside of Islam for examples of peaceful protest. And this isn’t the only example. In November of 1975, King Hassan II of Morocco organized a march of 300,000 people who, carrying nothing but the Qur’an marched south into the dessert then occupied by Spain. It was called the Green march after the holy color of Islam. The UN Security Council condemned the action, but the King refused to back down. The result was the signing of the Madrid agreement which redrew the boundaries of the nation of Morocco. Changed the national boundaries without firing a shot! Imagine that! Imagine that! Imagine that! For Allah is the most compassionate, the most merciful. Amen.

[Miriam]

Martin Buber has written an excellent reply to this, maybe one of you knows an English translation online.

[Mediocrates]

Gandhi talking about Judaism from the perspective of a nationalist Hindu is, like the old quote, "dancing about architecture." And that is the key to understanding Gandhi. He was an Indian nationalist first and a peaceful nonviolent Hindu second. Those were tools to him not the goal.

What would Montezuma say? Simon Bolivar? Eamon de Valera? Lao Tzu, Ho Chi Minh?

Sort of interesting but not really to the point. The real question in my mind is this. Where is the Palestinian Martin Luther King? As long as we're playing at thought experiment where would they be TODAY if instead they had a self professed Saladin in his own mind, they had a real leader 8 years ago?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Miriam
Martin Buber has written an excellent reply to this, maybe one of you knows an English translation online.

You can post me a link if it is in German.

[Communication]

Thank you everyone for your responses. I do find Ghandi's statements troubling, but I'm not sure what it moves me to conclude. I posted the thread because of a conversation in another thread about pinpoint assasinations as a response to terror and the rule of law in civilized nations. Of course, this cuts both ways in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I don't think that Ghandi was an anti-semite. I believe that he did find commonality between the plight of Hindus in India and the plight of Jews in Europe. But he, like some of the early Zionist thinkers like Ahad Haam, understood the impact of creating a Jewish home in Palestine on the existing Arab population, and likewise, felt great compassion for the rights of those people.

His formula worked against the British, so I think he had reason to suspect that it would work in Germany, which was a country considered to be the model nation for the enlightenment and all that a civilized nation could be. I think that he underestimated the determination of Hitler as well as the impact of a massacre on the Jewish people. There are significantly more Hindus in India than there were Jews in Germany.

What I find curious, is that after the war, he at first tried to maintain his position on the universality of his formula, even though it obviously didn't work, and then later changed his mind completely on his original premise, even offering justification for a Jewish homeland by saying that the Jews have a strong claim because they were there first. What made him change his mind, I do not know. His formula worked for the Indians, but it was a devastating forumla for the Jews of Europe. The whole notion of trying to apply universal notions of morality to different political situations is very problematic. We do it because we like order and certainty in the law, and the absence of universal principals of morality is what, chaos? Isn't that what the civilized world is most afraid of?


andak, you at least recognized this in your essay. What I find troubling is that the best forumla you could find is Hudabaya. Isn't there a formula that offers more than a temporary peace?

[elke]

The same "mob psychology" that accounts for atrocities, can also be a danger when the leader is good. For one thing, no one has the monopoly on "the whole truth", which means that even the individuals who are terrific can be - and have been known to be - wrong on certain things. The key is to remember that no leader can be followed unquestioningly, that individuals must reserve the right to question and respectfully disagree with authority.

There are those who believe that Gandhi's non-violence led to enormous number of Hindu deaths. I don't know what I believe - not enough information yet, - but even if this is an erroneous view, the fact remains that he sorely underestimated the "Jewish problem". Remember: the Hindus were not a minority. They were oppressed, yes, but there was a place they could call home. They could unite and break the yoke that oppressed them. This option is not open to minorities within other cultures: their only choice is between "Lech Lecha" or submission.

[andak01]

andak, you at least recognized this in your essay. What I find troubling is that the best forumla you could find is Hudabaya. Isn't there a formula that offers more than a temporary peace?

Remember that Muhammad was running a state. One of the duties of a state is its own survival. A state that is overrun ceases to be. There is no question of a permanent peace if having that leads to the fall of the state by a more warlike and aggressive people. The best you can do is to draw up treaties with your neighbors and hold up your own side of the bargain. Go read what Surah Taubah has to say about treaties, because I had a poster on another thread tell me that Muslims are allowed to break treaties. Everybody is familiar with the verse fragment "kill the infidels where you find them". Well look at Taubah and tell me which infidels, when and under what conditions? The answer is, according to that verse, all the infidels we are allowed to kill are already dead. If you take it out of historic context as a universal prescription for killing infidels then:

- We can't kill any infidels who don't attack us first
- We can't kill anyone who converts. We can't kill any Muslims. (And who ever listened to that verse?)
- We can't kill anyone is attacking us and stops attacking us.
- We can't kill anyone with whom we have a treaty, so long as they honor that treaty.

And that is according to the most famously used proof that Islam is out to kill all Infidels.

[Frans_1]

Remember that Muhammad was running a state. One of the duties of a state is its own survival. A state that is overrun ceases to be. There is no question of a permanent peace if having that leads to the fall of the state by a more warlike and aggressive people. The best you can do is to draw up treaties with your neighbors and hold up your own side of the bargain.

that sounds like Israel you are talking about.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Frans_1
that sounds like Israel you are talking about.

It sounds like the idealistic rhetoric of Israel. I always say about George Bush, if he did what he speaks about, he'd be the greatest president we ever had. If Sharon were what he pictures himself as, the whole world would be standing in line to defend Israel from the Palestinians.

[elke]

Originally posted by andak01
It sounds like the idealistic rhetoric of Israel. I always say about George Bush, if he did what he speaks about, he'd be the greatest president we ever had. If Sharon were what he pictures himself as, the whole world would be standing in line to defend Israel from the Palestinians.

Not really: the fact of the matter is that whether the war is defensive or offensive, it is always, always ugly. There are always innocents killed, both due to human errors in judgment and simply because the self-preservation instinct of the terrorists makes them hide within general population. In fact, that's what we are witnessing now in Israel - as well as with the American War on Terrorism. You are asking Bush and Sharon to do something that is impossible to achieve in practice.

[Miriam]

Originally posted by andak01
You can post me a link if it is in German. I believe the original is in Hebrew, translated in English for Gandhi's benefit. The only German version I know of is in an academic edition of Buber's writings.

[Mediocrates]

FWIW in today's Parsha - (hello anyone go to shul today besides me?) The Jews leave Egypt and are backed against the Red Sea. As is customary there are 4 different opinions about what to do. One is daven, one is fight, one drown themselves and one is simply move forward. As Rashi tells us, now (then) is not the time to daven. They can't fight against Egypt and it is absurd to drown themselves. God did not free them to simply kill themselves. That is not an option. So when Gandhi talks about killing themselves he is applying a non Jewish ethic to this. And before anyone reminds me of Masada, remember that Masada is about religious purity, not suicide. The Romans demanded they abandon their religion which is why they did what they did. Neither Shemos (Exodus) nor Shoa (Holocaust) are in any way comparable.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates hello anyone go to shul today besides me?[/B]

I didn't go to shul, or even madrasa (recently). Fill me in on the term daven.

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
I didn't go to shul, or even madrasa (recently). Fill me in on the term daven.

Davening is a method of praying.

I will look into what Surah Taubah has to say about Hudabaya. Is he considered authoritative? I have always been interested in the historical context of the treaty, seeing as how Arafat refered to it in Cairo after signing the Oslo Accords. There are so many religious interpretations of a given passage, so we have to look at how prominent Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian camp interpret them. I have heard that some Muslims consider all of the land to be Islamic land, while others like the Ayatollah Khomeini have publicly stated that "there are no frontiers in Islam." Of course that statement can be interpreted in several ways.

I believe that the majority of Jews view the conflict with the Palestinians and Israelis as a political one. I use to think that the same was true for the Palestinian side, but I don't know where people are headed now or even if they know themselves. People all around the world, over 100,000 people where I live, marched for peace yesterday while people in Gaza and Damsacas marched for war, shouting for Saddam to bomb Tel Aviv. So I don't know what to do.

[Communication]

I only found portions of Buber's response on the web. I read the full thing today in The Writings of Martin Buber by Will Herberg. The title of his writing is "The Land and its Possesors: Open letter to Ghandi"

[andak01]

Originally posted by Communication
Davening is a method of praying.

[quote]I will look into what Surah Taubah has to say about Hudabaya. Is he considered authoritative?

LOL. HE is a book of the Koran. Taubah is quoted to show that Muslims can kill all Infidels. It's historic and says nothing of the sort. It says that the Muslims of Medina can kill those Meccans that refuse to stop attacking them. Since all the Infidels it speaks of are already dead, saying that it enjoins us to kill wrong.

I have always been interested in the historical context of the treaty, seeing as how Arafat refered to it in Cairo after signing the Oslo Accords. There are so many religious interpretations of a given passage, so we have to look at how prominent Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian camp interpret them.

If they are interpretting that they have some excuse to act immorally, they are exercising their free will in a very unfortunate way.

I have heard that some Muslims consider all of the land to be Islamic land, while others like the Ayatollah Khomeini have publicly stated that "there are no frontiers in Islam." Of course that statement can be interpreted in several ways.

To evaluate those statements, you should understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

I believe that the majority of Jews view the conflict with the Palestinians and Israelis as a political one. I use to think that the same was true for the Palestinian side, but I don't know where people are headed now or even if they know themselves.


People all around the world, over 100,000 people where I live, marched for peace yesterday while people in Gaza and Damsacas marched for war, shouting for Saddam to bomb Tel Aviv. So I don't know what to do.

That's great. I hope the Muslims were also well represented.

[Givaty]

Are you implying that there ever was a state called "palestine" or a "palestinian" people before 1964?
If so, get your facts straight, then we'll talk.
There has never been a "palestine" and the only national homeland to ever exist there is and will always be Israel.
So long as there are "palestinian" murderers who hate Jews more than they love their kids, there will be no peace, there will be no "palestine."
Stop legitimacizing their murders!
-Levy

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
LOL. HE is a book of the Koran. Taubah is quoted to show that Muslims can kill all Infidels. It's historic and says nothing of the sort. It says that the Muslims of Medina can kill those Meccans that refuse to stop attacking them. Since all the Infidels it speaks of are already dead, saying that it enjoins us to kill wrong.

Right, "Surah"- my bad.



Originally posted by andak01
That's great. I hope the Muslims were also well represented.

Yes, people are very worried about how the government is treating Muslims here post- 9/11. You skipped over my concerns about what people seem to be protesting for in Gaza and Damascus.

[Leon Uris]

Gandhi was a f***ing moron.

Only now are Indians waking up to the enormous damage he and Nehru inflicted on India in the name of secularism.

Not only did he allow the muslims their own homeland (which by the way, i do not oppose - no better way to get rid of them): he astonishingly allowed even more muslims to stay back and thus forever doom India and its chances of ever attaining its former glory.