controversy at U of R Gandhi Institute

Mr. Gandhi heads the Non-Violence Institute at the University of Rochester. Is it really that surprising that he would object to the violence perpetrated against Palestinians in the name of Zionist “self-defense?” I certainly do not support terrorism or terrorist tactics however I do wonder what alternatives are left for people who are essentially imprisoned, treated as sub-human and denied basic human rights? Of course they will attack those who have subjected them to such miserable conditions. I think this is the point Mr. Gandhi was trying to make via his snakepit analogy.

Indeed Mr. Gandhi was a featured speaker at The Rachel Corrie Foundation’s 2006 Peace Works conference. For those who do not know her story, Rachel Corrie was murdered by an Israeli Army bulldozer while attempting to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian family home in the Gaza Strip. Mr. Gandhi’s participation in this event demonstrates that his opposition to the Israeli Zionist movement is not motivated by some irrational personal dislike of Jews but rather is part and parcel of his commitment to the non- violent resolution of violent conflict.

While Mr. Gandhi’s comments about the Holocaust do come across as somewhat flippant his correlation of the Holocaust with the founding of the Israeli nation state is warranted. As we all know Israel was founded in the wake of World War Two by the United Nations; the same year that Mr. Gandhi’s native land of India gained independence from their British colonizers. Prior to Independence, at the behest of the British, the subcontinent was partitioned into West Pakistan, India and East Pakistan. This partition by decree of an imperialist power resulted in the violent deaths, rape and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens. Mr. Gandhi hails from a nation quite literally torn apart by religion-based partition. He has observed the negative ramifications of religious partition first hand. His grandfather Mohandas K. Gandhi, the legendary figure behind the successful Indian Independence movement, was adamantly opposed to the partition of India based on religious identity. Though Mohandas Gandhi was a devout Hindu he was grief stricken over religious divisions within his own homeland. Is it really that surprising that his grandson, Arun Gandhi would be opposed to the violence that has taken place as a result of an imperialist and externally mandated partition in another area of the world? I suspect that if Mahatma Gandhi were alive today he too would be deeply opposed to Israel’s Zionist aggression in the name of “self defense.”

I am in no way suggesting that the Holocaust was not a horrific instance of genocide directed at the Jewish people. However, it is worth remembering that Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. Roughly five million of those murdered in the concentration camps were non-German Catholics, Gypsies, homosexuals, trade unionists and political dissidents. However even more recently than the Holocaust of World War Two, Rwandan Tutsis were slaughtered en masse. The United Nations has not advocated for the creation of a nation state for the Tutsi victims of the Rwandan genocide.

In his comments Mr. Gandhi also failed to note that the Israeli nation state’s militaristic aggression towards the Palestinians is in large part funded by the United States. The United States has its own lengthy history of genocide of Native Americans and enslaved Africans. Incidentally the United Nations has not offered to provide Native Americans nor the descendants of enslaved Africans with their own nation states. Many of the emancipated slaves never received their promised forty acres and mule let alone reparations or safe passage to their own nation state. Though Native Americans have been granted the right to profit from casinos located on reservation owned and governed lands gifted by our federal government in recompense for the slaughter of entire tribes of people. Who is qualified to decide which victims of historical genocide should be granted their own nation state? What are the criteria used for deciding who is entitled to that privilege and who is not?

If Jews cannot be guaranteed freedom from genocidal persecution anywhere in the world except for Israel why haven’t all Jews relocated to Israel? Obviously Anti-Semitism still exists as does racism and ethnic strife of myriad varieties. However to argue that Jews alone are entitled to a nation state on the basis of historical persecution seems arbitrary.

I feel that Mr. Gandhi’s comments about the Holocaust were meant as a cautionary tale rather than a blanket indictment of Jewish people around the world. As the victims of historical persecution and a comparatively recent mass genocide one would hope that all Jews would respond with virulent opposition to the oppression of any group of people under any circumstances. And yet the Israeli nation state seems to have taken the opposite tack by advocating violence against anyone who dares to question the political machinations involved in granting one particular group of victims of genocide a nation state when countless others have not been so similarly privileged. Perhaps it bears mentioning that the majority of Israeli Jews are racially “white” Ashkenazi Jews.

Israeli Zionists advocate the virtual imprisonment of all Palestinian citizens (not just militants) based on the belief that all Palestinians are potentially Anti-Semites by virtue of association. Does opposing the imperialist occupation of one’s own appropriated homeland necessarily equal Anti-Semitism? A related question might be why do so many American intellectuals who strongly believe in the importance of post-colonial studies and abhor our own nation’s foreign policy debacles leap to the defense of an aggressive and militaristic Israel?

I think that the controversy over Mr. Gandhi’s remarks should be used to instigate a university wide discussion about the imbrications of religious movements and past and present imperialisms rather than lambasting Mr. Gandhi for expressing decidedly unpopular global political sentiments somewhat thoughtlessly. One of the fundamental tenets of non-violence or ahimsa as advocated by Mr. Gandhi’s grandfather was dialogue and right action. Rather than castigate Mr. Gandhi for what we perceive to be “wrong actions” wouldn’t we all be better off creating a forum for Mr. Gandhi to explain his statements and for others to respond rather than rushing to condemn him for his “Anti-Semitism”?
_________________
D.H.