ISRAEL’S JANUARY 2009 INVASION OF GAZA

Before providing this Q&A on the invasion, it is necessary for me to make a declaration of my intellectual and emotional connection to the States of Israel and Palestine.

I was raised in a community of my own and my parents’ friends that included people from China, the USA, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Italy, Greece, Croatia, Serbia, Ukraine, Poland, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa, and Turkey. I grew up with a particularly emotional understanding of the Holocaust and its implications for the Jewish diaspora, because two families in our most intimate circle of friends had lost many of their loved ones in the camps at Auschwitz, Belsen, and Dachau, and had become refugees in Australia.

Through my lifelong friendships with those Jewish families, and after a significant research into two millennia of anti-Semitism, I have long been a passionate defender of the concept of Israel: a homeland for the Jewish people, where they can be free of persecution and freely determine their own destiny. I don’t mean this in a religious sense. Most of my Jewish friends are not especially (or at all) religious, and indeed the first Jewish people to be murdered by the Nazi regime in Germany were in fact the Jewish communists, trades unionists, and anarchists, most of whom were not religious. I’m referring instead to the concept that all those people, religious and non-religious, who consider themselves to be Jewish should and must have a homeland where they are free of persecution and can freely determine their destiny.

So, I am a passionate supporter of the State of Israel, and I accept that despite the many errors of judgement and miscarriages of justice involved in the establishment of the State of Israel in British Mandated Palestine, from the Balfour Declaration all the way to the most recent invasion of Gaza, the State of Israel has the right to exist. The fact of Israel’s establishment in Palestine occurred before I was born, and was a reality, recognized by many nations, by the time my young consciousness became aware of its existence. For me, having studied this question passionately and dispassionately for 35 years, there is no rational way to discuss the legitimacy of the State of Israel in Palestine. This is a fact – quite literally a fact on the ground – and it is irrational and counter-productive to pursue arguments related to the legitimacy of the existing State of Israel. Israel exists as a reality in the Middle East, and will not ever be established in another place. It is what it is, and it is where it is, and failing to accept that is, in my view, irrational, unreasonable and unproductive.

Furthermore, I am a passionate supporter of the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland, where they, too, can be free of persecution, and freely determine their own destiny. I declare from the outset that I have been involved in supporting peace groups in Israel, as part of my commitment to the State of Israel, and I’ve supported peace groups in Palestine for many years, as part of my commitment to the State of Palestine.

So much, then, for the political: on the emotional level, at present, I have many friends and acquaintances living in Israel, and while most of my Palestinian friends live in Australia, Europe, and the United States of America, some few friends still live in Gaza and the West Bank. I’m not speaking from the point of view of a person with no vested interest in the conflict: on the contrary, the health and safety of my friends in Gaza and Israel is a primary emotional concern. Moreover, given the outward ramifications of the conflict, I think it is almost impossible for anyone, anywhere in the world, not to have a vested interest in what happens there.

The essay I’ve written on this subject, appearing here, is in the form of a Q&A. I’ve taken all the many questions asked of me by readers, and I’ve condensed them into a short collection that incorporates all of the points that occur most frequently in those questions.

Q. 1) Why did Israel invade Gaza in January 2009?
A. 1) There were two main reasons for this most recent invasion, in January 2009. First, the approaching (at the time of the invasion) election in Israel: the invasion reflected the statement made by Ariel Sharon and others in the past, “If you want to win elections in Israel, kill Arabs and talk about peace.” Second, some elements of the political parties, the military, religious groups, and the security services have consistently pursued a “scorched earth” policy toward the Palestinians. This policy has as its sole purpose the maximum possible destruction of infrastructure, economic institutions, agriculture, education facilities, public utilities, transport, and housing in Palestinian territories. That destruction happens on a cyclical basis, and determines that the Palestinian areas never fully resurrect themselves and become viable economic or political entities.

Q. 2) Are you saying that the invasion had nothing to do with rocket attacks made by Hamas against Israel?
A. 2) Every serious thinker knows that rocket attacks will only stop with a negotiated settlement. Every serious thinker knows that the rocket attacks almost completely ceased under the 6-month ceasefire that was initiated by Hamas. Every serious thinker knows that Hamas honoured the ceasefire and stopped the rocket attacks for so long as Israel also honoured the ceasefire. That is, when Israel broke the ceasefire, Hamas fired rockets into Israel; when Israel honoured the ceasefire, the rocket attacks ceased. Clearly, if Israel’s desire is to stop rocket attacks, the best and in fact only course of action is to broker, maintain, and honour a ceasefire with Hamas. Figures published by the Israeli secret service organization Shin Bet show that during the truce and ceasefire in operation in 2005, fatalities among Israelis dropped by 60%, from 117 to 45; fatalities among Palestinians in the same period were down by an even greater percentage, some 77%, from 822 to 190, with injured Palestinians falling from 4,009 to 986. While even one death, on either side, is an undoubted tragedy, these figures prove conclusively that a truce and ceasefire significantly reduce fatalities and casualties on both sides. What stops rocket attacks is a genuine and scrupulously honoured truce and ceasefire. The purpose of the invasion was not the publicly stated purpose of stopping rocket attacks. The invasion was planned months in advance, during the ceasefire, when there were very few rocket attacks against Israel. It was timed to coincide with the period of transition before the inauguration of President Obama, and to conclude just before the inauguration. The two main purposes were to increase the chance of winning the coming election in Israel, and to destroy as much of the Palestinian infrastructure as possible.

Q. 3) Why would these elements in Israel want to cause such destruction in Palestinian territories?
A. 3) The long-term strategy of these elements in the political parties, the military, religious groups, and the security services with respect to Gaza is to remove Gaza from the map. These elements in Israel would prefer that Gaza were incorporated into Israel (but without the Palestinian population), or incorporated into Egypt. These elements regard it as unacceptable that an independent State (Gaza) within Israel would have a seaport that could be used to smuggle in weapons of mass destruction that could be used against Israel, or that could be used as an access point for marine attacks against Israel. The long-term strategy of these elements in Israel has been to drive a wedge between the West Bank and Gaza, to isolate Gaza, and then to make life so intolerably difficult that Gazans would agree to leave the state, or to have the state incorporated into Egypt.

Q. 4) How can they believe that this can happen?
A. 4) Much of it already has happened. The group known today as Hamas was in fact founded by Islamists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, but with the help and support of the Israeli internal security agency, Shin Bet. Support for Hamas was seen then, in the 1980s, as creating a rival and an alternative to the militant (and Marxist) Palestinian groups the PLO and the PFLP. This seemingly contradictory support has to be seen in the context of the cold war strategies being played out across the world in the 1980s: strategies that resulted, for example, in the USA condoning the proliferation of Saudi Arabian sponsored Wahabist madrassas in Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, and the USA playing a major part in supporting the creation of the Taliban as a counter to the expansion of Soviet influence in Afghanistan. In the case of Hamas, Israel played the religion card in order to trump the Marxism card being played by Fatah and the PFLP. When the corruption, incompetence and despotism of PLO party figures destroyed a large component of support for the PLO among Palestinians, and they voted for a Hamas government, Israel seized the chance to divide the Palestinians and pit them against one another. Today, Gaza is isolated and branded as the face of “extremist” Palestine, and the West Bank under the junta of Abbas and the PLO is seen as “moderate” Palestine. The collective punishment blockade of Gaza imposed by Israel, and the recent invasion, have reduced the isolated Gaza enclave to an almost intolerably difficult place in which to live. Thus, the first two conditions have already been met. What remains is the final element in this plan: the excision of Gaza

Q. 5) Do you support Hamas?
A. 5) No. I am a secularist, and I hold that religion is a private matter, not a political one. I am, therefore, against any nation establishing itself as a theocracy or religiously denominated state. Furthermore, Hamas has shown itself to be ruthless in suppressing opposition to its rule in Gaza, has perpetrated gross human rights violations against Palestinian people, and it has sanctioned the clear and indubitable war crime of launching deadly weapons against civilian targets in Israel.

Q. 6) Does that mean you support Israel?
A. 6) No. I support the concept of the State of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist – but I cannot condone or support the actions of the State of Israel. The State of Israel is a terror state, which has broken every international covenant that seeks to ensure that countries live together in peace, prosperity, and positive harmony. Israel is a rogue nuclear state, it launches air attacks against its neighbours, uses weapons banned in civilian contexts such as phosphorus bombs and cluster bombs, kidnaps individuals, assassinates those it sees as enemies in third countries, carries out collective punishments such as arrest and imprisonment of family members of those suspected of launching attacks, demolishing houses owned by families of those suspected of launching attacks, and blockades that restrict the flow of medicines and food to civilian populations, and uses torture against suspected militants or their family members. It is not possible to support the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, as I do, and support either the State of Israel, or the Hamas and PLO regimes in the Palestinian territories.

Q. 7) How are the Israeli elections connected to the invasion of Gaza?
A. 7) As I said above, quoting Ariel Sharon and others, “If you want you win elections in Israel, kill Arabs and talk about peace.” The fact is that after the murder of the last Prime Minister with any integrity at all, Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli political scene has moved sharply and inexorably to the right. At the time of Yitzhak Rabin’s murder, 60% of Israelis indicated their intention to vote for his peace plan with the Palestinians – a plan that involved the establishment of an independent Palestinian State. After Rabin’s murder by a Zionist fanatic – a man who has recently stated that he was misled by the rhetoric of Ariel Sharon and other fanatics – the Labor Party in Israel elected Ehud Barak as its leader. Barak is a right winger, who infiltrated the Labor Party in order to lead it towards the right, and away from an accommodation with the Palestinian people. Because he was a highly decorated “war hero” with a high profile, the Labor Party was enraptured with him, and failed to detect that he was, in fact, against everything that the Labor Party had stood for in Israel – and certainly all that Yitzhak Rabin had stood for, and given his life for in the interests of peace. Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres led the Labor Party towards the right, month by month and year by year. Today, the Labor Party, Kadima, and Likud are all but indistinguishable. Thus, the brutal invasion of Gaza – a crime against humanity in any sensible definition – was launched by a Labor Party coalition, and prosecuted with as much cruelty and destructive vigour as any campaign that might be waged by Likud. The invasion, in other words, was a demonstration of the right-wing credentials of Labor and Kadima, in a craven attempt to appease the voices of the right calling for ever more Palestinian blood.

Q 8) Would you recognize Hamas, or a Hamas-led Government?
A. 8) Yes. We either believe in democracy, or we don’t. The USA barges its way through international bodies, claiming to be the voice of the free world. But when an Islamic government was due for democratic election in Algeria, the USA supported the military junta that took power and ruled by force. When the Palestinian people – voting in the first open, free, and fair election in the Arab world – voted for Hamas, the USA refused to recognize it. The fact is, that our governments in the West don’t really believe in democracy: they believe in getting what they want. I believe in democracy. I believe that even repugnant regimes, such as those of Hamas, or the FIS in Algeria, or George Bush2 in the USA, must be recognized, if the will of the people is expressed in free and fair elections. That doesn’t mean that we have to trade with such repugnant regimes, or fail to criticize them if we detect violations of the rights of citizens under their care. It simply means that we recognize the democratic process that elected the repugnant regimes. Voltaire said: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. In this context, we may paraphrase to say: I disagree with the party you have elected, but I will defend to the death your right to democratically elect them. If we don’t defend democracy itself, we have no way to peacefully and constructively work to remove the repugnant regime that was elected in the first place. If we are hypocritical – by giving our support to military juntas that please us, and withdrawing support for democratically elected governments that don’t please us – we have no moral force with which to oppose injustice, for we become perpetrators of injustice ourselves. So long as we robustly defend the practice of democracy – even when a regime that is repugnant to us is elected – we defend the means by which the people will freely reject that repugnant regime in the future.

Q. 9) Will this situation go on in the Middle East forever?
A. 9) No. There is a changing demographic in the USA. The Arab population in the USA matches the Jewish population today, and will greatly outnumber the Jewish population in the next 15 to 20 years. This will significantly change the pressure dynamic in American politics. Furthermore, there is an understanding across every level of government, security, and military expertise in the USA that terrorism, as they term it, will never stop until the Israel-Palestine situation is resolved. Bin Laden made two demands when he attacked the Twin Towers: get out of the holy land of Mecca, and give the Palestinian people a State. The USA cut and run from Saudi Arabia, closing down their military base there, and withdrawing all of their troops. This, of course, was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq: when the USA lost 25% of the world’s oil, in Saudi Arabia, they looked for a country with another 25%, which was Iraq, and created a pretext for an invasion that would secure the oil there. Bin Laden’s second demand – the creation of a Palestinian State – is still on the drawing board, but the pressure on the USA to withdraw its essential support from Israel and thus compel them to reach a peaceful accommodation with the Palestinians grows more powerful every day. The Israeli governments and political parties know this. The scramble for Palestinian land, the infamous haste with which new, illegal settlements are being constructed on Palestinian land, and the desperate, nihilistic attacks on Palestinian infrastructure are the last gasp of a small nation that knows their big nation ally has put the writing on the wall. The USA will begin to withdraw its support, and make the continuance of it conditional on the establishment of peace and a Palestinian State. And not so long from now, there will be two States, Palestinian and Israeli, with a fragile but enduring peace.

Q. 10) Why do you not use the word “terrorist”?
A. 10) There are several reasons. First, I think the word has lost its meaning. When the Labor and Kadima Parties launch an invasion of Gaza that involves mass-starvation, the destruction of thousands of homes, mosques, schools, universities, police stations, electricity generators, and hospitals, the use of phosphorus and cluster weapons, and many other crimes against humanity – and they do this in the name of fighting against terrorism and terrorists – it makes no sense to talk of Hamas rocket attacks as the only terrorist attacks. When the USA bombs civilians on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, using drone aircraft and weapons of mass destruction, killing scores and sometimes hundreds of innocent women and children in the hopes of killing one Taliban commander, and they do that in the name of attacking terrorists, the word “terrorism” has lost its sensible meaning.

In short, the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” has become a weapon in the definitional war of words that labels one set of violent men (it’s usually men) as terrorists and the other as righteous fighters. I can’t accept that. It’s all terror, and they’re all terrorist acts. Hamas firing rockets into Israel at anonymous civilians is a terrorist act, but so is the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Taliban attacks on NATO civilian offices in Pakistan are terrorist attacks, but so are the USA drone attacks on the border. Because politicians, commentators, and the press (appallingly complicit in this definitional war) fail to call a terror spade a spade, and fail to describe USA drone attacks on civilians and Israeli Phosphorus attacks on Palestinian civilians as terrorist attacks, which they undoubtedly are, the use of the word itself has become political. For that reason, first and foremost, I refuse to use the word.

Secondly, since the Twin Tower attacks of 9/11, unscrupulous governments with political agendas have used the label “terrorist” to launch violent strikes against sections of their own populations, and to justify these attacks as defence against the threat of terrorism. Governments involved include Russia against the Chechens, Israel against Hamas in Gaza, and Sri Lanka against the Tamil separatists, among many others. The “war on terror” has been used to justify any intramural aggression or cruelty, and the victims of this state-sanctioned violence are silenced and demonised by use of the word “terrorists”. This is an extremely dangerous tendency, and one that all those concerned with human rights should resist.

Third, I think it is important that we name and distinguish groups that perpetrate violent acts – that we individualize them – rather than to simply aggregate them into a lump sum term: terrorist. If we don’t distinguish between the Basque ETA, the North Indian Naxalites, the Tamil Tigers, the Islamic jihad, and all the other groups currently given the generic label “terrorist” organizations, we can’t hope to understand them, and ultimately to isolate and disarm them.

Q. 11) What is your solution for the Israel-Palestine Conflict?
A. 11) It’s not up to me, or any other outside commentator to tell the people of Israel or Palestine how they should resolve their differences. Any peaceful solution must be their own solution, and not one that is imposed on them.

Q. 12) But you must have some idea of what a peaceful solution would look like?
A. 12) I think that Israel and Palestine – however the two States finally shape up geographically – should sign a mutual defence pact. I think that they should say to one another, when the two-States are finally established: “The whole world has it in for both of us. Both our peoples are attacked and suffer injustices in many countries. We must pledge to defend one another for all of eternity, as brothers and sisters with a connected destiny. So, we Israelis pledge that if anyone ever attacks the State of Palestine, we will fight to the last to defend your nation. And we Palestinians pledge that if anyone ever attacks the State of Israel, we will fight to the last to defend your nation. And hey, if we two nations unite to defend one another, there’s no power on Earth that will ever defeat us.”
Geographically, my suggestion would be for a total withdrawal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in exchange for a total Palestinian withdrawal from Gaza. I would consolidate the Gazan population in the newly deserted illegal settlements established by the Israelis in the West Bank, and require Jordan to surrender a small piece of land on the existing border with the Palestinian West bank: sufficient to accommodate the return of the millions of Palestinians who are living in refugee camps in surrounding countries. Jordan would cede the land to the New Palestinian State, on condition that a majority of Palestinians currently living in Jordan would return to Palestine and permanently leave the State of Jordan, and with a substantive agreement on the use of water originating from Jordan by Israel and the newly created Palestine that is fair to all parties.

In this plan, the Palestinians would give up their seaport at Gaza, but be free to develop an international airport in Palestine. The Israelis would give up their illegal settlements in the West Bank, but they would gain a new seaport and all of the land currently known as Gaza. The Jordanians would give up a parcel of land on the existing border with the Palestinian West Bank, but they would remove the troublesome Palestinian population from their territory, and resolve the long-standing disputes concerning the use of water. The Palestinian refugees would not have a right of return to land currently defined as Israel, but they would have an inalienable right of return to Palestine, and they would find new homes and new land and opportunities in a strong, clearly defined and unitary (as opposed to today, with a divided Gaza and West Bank) Palestinian State. On conclusion of the deal, Palestine and Israel would sign a mutual defence pact, and unite their armies in a combined defence force.

I would appoint Amos Oz and Hanan Ashrawi as the new Presidents of Israel and Palestine respectively, and give them the job of working out the gigantic transfers of populations into the newly defined states. Their budget, of US$500 Billion would come from the world community of nations, as a reward to Israel and Palestine for reaching the peace agreement, and would go to rebuilding, re-housing, and other infrastructure needs for both nations.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF RACISM TOWARD INDIAN PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA

I’m not qualified to make a long and detailed answer to the many requests I’ve received, asking me to comment on the recent allegations of racism in Australia, following attacks on – among others – Indian people. I don’t live in Australia, and I haven’t lived there for some years. I don’t have a strong connection to Australia, and I don’t follow what happens there in detail. My connection is to the people I love, who happen to live in Australia, but not to Australia itself. This means that I am not in a position to provide a detailed analysis, or a profound contribution to the current discourse.

I know this won’t be satisfactory for those who live in Australia and feel deeply affected by the issue, or for those in India who’ve taken a public stand on this matter, and who would like me to make a more substantial comment. My intellectual method, however, follows this simple rule: know your data, and analyse your data thoroughly, before you form even a partial hypothesis, or make a public comment on any issue. Because I don’t have sufficient data, I can’t rigorously analyze the data, and I can’t form even a partial hypothesis.

That being said, I am in a position to make two broad, general comments that some readers may feel to be relevant to the many questions I’ve been asked.

First, I do not believe that Australia is a particularly racist country, or that Australians are particularly racist people. I’ve lived in many countries, from Europe to Asia, and from Oceania to Africa. I’ve seen the kind of casual or more strident forms of racism that exist in all of those countries. I’ve experienced racism myself, having being very often stereotyped or even attacked for no other reason than the colour of my eyes, or of my skin.

In my experience, Australians are no more racist than the people of any country where I have lived. Police figures published in response to the allegations of racism – that there was a racist component to the attacks involving Indian students and others, and that these attacks were part of a co-ordinated series of attacks specifically targeting Indian students and others – indicate that, in the period under scrutiny, for every assault or attack made against an Indian person, there were many more made against people who were not of Indian origin. In the published figures for assaults in the period under scrutiny – one of the few pieces of scientific data I’ve seen published in any newspaper or other forum – attacks and other violent assaults or instances of theft against the person involved the Anglo-Saxon (we might say “white”) experienced the highest number of assaults.
One other small piece of hard data, obtained from figures recently published in Australia, show that Anglo-Saxon Australians marry outside their community – that is, they marry into Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Greek, Italian and other communities – at a much higher rate than do those of the other communities considered in the census. Members of the Indian community, by contrast, marry almost exclusively within their cultural community. Obviously, there are many simple reasons for such marital homogeneity, and it would be inappropriate to draw too many conclusions from this single piece of data. However, one can reasonably conclude that marrying freely with members of other ethnic and cultural communities is not what one could reasonably describe as a characteristic of a racist society or of racist people. Furthermore, entire suburbs of shops in Australia have become devoted to ethnic minorities, such as the Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indian communities. This is not a characteristic of a racist society – and there are many countries where it is not possible – or in fact illegal – to display all signs and messages in the language of an ethnic minority.

In summary of the first point, my experience of Australia – from universities to prisons, from factories to boardrooms, and from rugby teams to art galleries – is that Australia is not more racist than any of the other countries where I have lived.

The second broad, general comment I want to make in response to all the emails I’ve received, asking me for a response, is that there is no community in the world, in my wide experience, that is more tolerant and loving than the Indian community. I know this to be true because I’ve lived in India for 14 years of my life, and I’ve visited with the Indian Diaspora in 10 countries around the world. I know that if any person with an open heart approaches an Indian person in Australia, and asks them to tell them about Indian culture, music, food, movies, styles of dress, that they will be met with a friendship like no other I’ve ever known.

I travel the world, and I like all people. I love my human species, and I love what we are in our best moments, and what we wonderful humans will become if we wake up, change the paradigm, and achieve the destiny that’s awaiting our spectacularly beautiful consciousness. But in all the countries I’ve visited, no matter how hospitable or welcoming the people, there is nothing to match the tenderness and tolerance of the Indian people. What’s more, the addition of this tolerance and genuinely tender feeling to any community – to Australia, Canada, South Africa, or anywhere – is the sugar that makes the tea sweeter. What an Indian community adds to any country is so precious that wherever I go, in any big city of the world, I seek out the Indian community who lives there because I know my heart will be happier, and the smiles I find will be wider and warmer.

So, as a final comment, I urge critics and commentators from both sides to turn down the volume in this discourse. Australians are not more racist than others – not more racist than Indians, say – and having Indian people live in your country – in any country – is the best damn thing that can happen to your society.

Q & A 26/11 BLASTS AND ATTACKS IN BOMBAY

Bombay still suffers, as I write this on the 8th of December, 2008, even though the security situation in the Island City has improved, and a sense of order has been restored. Fortunately, and happily, none of the hundreds among my own friends and loved ones has been injured, but the death toll has risen to 171 people, and the injured number more than 300, some of them very seriously wounded. And while my friends at Leopold’s, Colaba Market, The Taj, and The Oberoi are all safe and well, many of their colleagues have been killed or injured, and their businesses have been seriously damaged. Two waiters at Leopold’s were killed, and others there were wounded. Eric, one of the managers, bears a wound on the side of his head where a bullet grazed his skull. He is now living what he calls his “second life”, and while he is happy to be alive, he shows the strain of the last weeks on his handsome face.
I’ll talk about what’s happening in Bombay in the next few lines, but first, before you read any further, I want to ask you, I want to plead with you, to keep the faith with India and the city I love, Bombay. If we continue to visit the country and meet the people, if we spend our time in the beautiful chaos and chaotic beauty, if we spend our money in the bazaars and hotels, if we buy the books by great Indian writers, listen to the music by brilliant Indian composers and musicians, marvel at the splendour of Indian dancers, watch the captivating movies, wonder at the art galleries – in other words, if we go on opening our hearts to the best that India teaches us, the people who did this violence can never win.
Okay, end of speech. Now, for your consideration, I offer you my analysis of the attacks on Bombay, in the form of a Q&A of the Top Ten Questions.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE Q&A
I’m often asked how it is that I didn’t give up in the past, when I was tortured in prisons, put into solitary confinement for 2 years, or found myself starving, homeless, exiled, and abandoned. I’m often asked how I keep my optimism now, in the face of terrible atrocities such as the recent attacks on Bombay.

What I want to say to you is that I don’t have the right to give up.
My many friends in Israel, who’ve suffered suicide bombings and other atrocities, have never given up their struggle for a just and lasting peace with the Palestinian people. Even against the criticism of their neighbours, who sometimes fail to see their love of all humanity as a virtue, they insist that there is no peace for Israel without a just and fair peace for the Palestinian people.

My many friends in Palestine, who’ve suffered violence from the State of Israel and their own neighbours, have never given up their struggle to open a peaceful and productive dialogue with Israel, and to live together with Israelis as friends and partners in the Middle East.

My many friends in Pakistan, who’ve endured arrests, beatings in detention, and discrimination in work and university study, have never given up their struggle for a free, democratic Pakistan that lives in peace and harmony with its neighbours.

My many friends in India, who’ve suffered personal attacks and active prejudice, have never given up their struggle against the fanatic forces of Hindu and Muslim extremism and toward an open, free, fair Indian society that brings enemies into a communication space where they can begin the understanding that leads those who once hated one another toward peace and friendship.

My friends in the USA, who’ve been attacked and vilified in the most degrading ways by the fanatic press and other vested interests, have never given up their struggle to preserve their freedoms, defend constitutional and mandated rights, and insist that all those accused of criminal acts – even those who launch Jihadist attacks against the USA – be tried in open, fair and just courts of law, with the rights of all charged persons applying equally and inviolably, even to them.

If these people, who struggle in much worse situations that I do, and suffer much more, do not give up their struggle for freedom, peace, and a life of creative, positive dignity for all people everywhere, then I don’t have a right to give up. It’s their inspiration that drives me on, gives me courage, and makes me determined never to betray their sacrifice or lose my faith in the beauty that lies at the heart of our human nature.
Okay, so here are the Q’s and the A’s.

Q. 1) Who did this – who made this attack on Bombay?
A. 1) We don’t know that yet, incontrovertibly. But it seems reasonable to conclude, based on what we do know so far, that the people who did this were/are Jihadists.

Q. 2) Who or what are Jihadists?
A. 2) Jihadist is a collective term for militant Islamists who have two main aims: a) to draw attention to, redress, and seek revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims; and b) to drive Muslim countries to declare themselves to be Islamic republics, to require them to adopt Sharia law as the national legal code, and to unite these Islamic republics in a pan-Islamic world order.
In my formulation, I use the term Jihadists, rather than the purely Arabic term Jihadi, which is used in Arabic news media and in other Arab forums, because I think it is important that we – meaning all those who want Jihadist attacks to stop, as much as we want the injustices done to Muslims that provoke the attacks to stop – do not provide the attackers with intellectual or emotional support. By using their own term for themselves, we reinforce their sense of their own justice and power. By using the term “terrorist”, we reinforce our own sense of their power over us. For me, the term Jihadist describes their collective goal, while not allowing them to glory in the violence that they do.

Q. 3) What did they hope to achieve with this attack on Bombay?
A. 3) There are three main objectives for the sort of violent attacks that are usually called “terrorist” attacks: a) to draw attention to, redress, and seek revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims; b) to incite radical or potentially radical Muslims to join their ranks, or to act independently; and c) to force national governments – particularly democracies – to reveal what the Jihadists perceive to be their true, repressive, undemocratic nature, by responding to the attacks with repressive measures, and making aggressive actions against neighbouring countries.

Q. 4) What makes them think this will work?
A. 4) Throughout history, radicalised groups have used violent acts to achieve their aims. And the fact is, sometimes, in the short term, they actually do achieve some of their aims. The attacks against Arab civilians made by the Irgun and the Lehi in Palestine, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, for example, were accurately described in the press of the time as terrorism, but the fact on the ground is that those attacks succeeded in driving Arabs from their homes. Nelson Mandela’s activities in the African National Congress were described by many governments as terrorism, but the attacks played a part in removing the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The repressive, undemocratic measures introduced by the Bush2 regime in the United States of America in response to the 911 attacks, as another example, were exactly the kind of actions that the Jihadists were trying to provoke. The invasion of Iraq, similarly, was exactly the kind of reaction that the Jihadists wanted. If you study publications and programs being circulated publicly in countries with large Muslim majorities, you find a multitude of voices that acknowledge the 911 attacks as both revenge for injustices suffered by Muslims, and also a significant expression of Muslim power – which then tends to radicalise a small percentage of young Muslims.

This is an extremely important point for the people of nations that suffer Jihadist attacks to understand. Many times, individuals and even nations – through their elected representatives – argue that Jihadists will not achieve their aims through these acts of violence. But this response comes from a failure to understand the Jihadists. The fact is, if one of their 3 main objectives is to avenge the injustices done to Muslims around the world, then they don’t expect to survive their attacks, and they don’t make claims or demands. The violence is an end in itself, because the violence done is an act of revenge. If we don’t acknowledge this, and respond to it rationally, we can never stop the mindset that inspires such attacks.

Furthermore, if we don’t acknowledge the fact that sometimes, against the best wishes of people of good will, the terror attacks actually provoke the results intended by those who use terror, we’ll never develop a comprehensive, rational, and effective response that eventually stops the attacks. We have to acknowledge that sometimes terror works, because we allow it to work, through our responses. If we are consistent in our responses, and never reward terror with the results that those who use terror want, then we will, in the long run, reduce terror attacks.

Q. 5) Are we in a hopeless situation? Will this go on forever?
A. 5) No. The power held by Jihadists – and all other violent radicals – is very small, up to now. It seems significant and powerful, because people die and suffer, because systems close down temporarily, and because it takes up a lot of time on the television and on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, but it’s really quite small: they have the power to kill some people, hurt a lot more people, and damage property, but they don’t have the power to change our political systems or our way of life. Only WE have the power to do that. And if we resist the provocation, hold fast to our collective belief in the power and inherent virtue of freedom, defend our constitutional and mandated rights, and insist that the perpetrators of such violent criminal acts be tried in open, fair and just courts of law – with the rights of all charged persons applying equally and inviolably to everyone, even to them – the violent radicals can never win. You can’t kill an idea with a bullet. You can only kill an idea with a better idea. And violence resulting in murder is not a better idea than peaceful, constructive dialogue. That’s why peaceful, constructive dialogue will win over violence in the long run.

Q. 6) These attacks on Bombay were well organized and well planned. Where did these people get their training?
A. 6) This is not yet known with certainty. While some small Jihadist training cells exist in India, most of the people who’ve been captured after previous attacks against Indian cities in the last several years – even those who were born in India – have admitted to being trained in camps set up in Pakistan. It is reasonable to conclude, based on this fact and the little we do know at this time, that the people who carried out these attacks were also trained in Pakistan.

Another point to make here is that although the attacks were planned long in advance, they were not well co-ordinated or executed. If an equally small force of well-trained Indian or American or Israeli commandos, for example, had launched an attack against Bombay, they would have achieved much more destruction. The fact is that the special forces of Israel, say, or America or Britain are truly well-trained, and the Jihadist attackers only seem to be well-trained. Their communication with one another broke down almost immediately in Bombay after the attacks began. They failed to follow through on the exit-strategy that the surviving attacker has described, and their attacks were nowhere near as effective as they might have been, with superior training.

We shouldn’t over-estimate the training and efficiency of these Jihadist fighters. In many cases, they are found to be simple, poorly educated young men who have been given very basic training, and then sent into civilian zones as human bombs, to cause destruction in the most basic and unsophisticated ways. We should not fear them, or create an image of them as fearful fighters. We should fear the harm that they do, but not fear them.

Q. 7) Is the Pakistan government involved in these attacks?
A. 7) It is unlikely that the government of Pakistan is involved. However, some retired politicians and perhaps some serving politicians, some mullahs, a segment of the Pakistan army, and a significant section of the Pakistan secret intelligence organisation, the ISI, have long supported a Jihadist agenda. There is no doubt that the Jihadist training camps in Pakistan could not function without significant support from significant elements of the army, ISI, and political echelons. The simple fact is that most of the Jihadists who have carried out attacks across the world, from London to Indonesia, have admitted that they received training at camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Bali bombers, who were executed in recent weeks, admitted in their last interview that they were trained to carry out their attacks at camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is a very significant schism in Pakistan society at this time. The vast majority of Pakistanis, like the majority of people everywhere in the world, want to live in peace and work for their personal prosperity. A small but significant number want world Jihad, and even war with India, as an expression of that Jihad. These two forces are clashing now, and it is the single most important struggle going on in the world today. If we don’t support the moderate, democratic forces in Pakistan, we could find ourselves facing a Taliban-style regime in control of Pakistan, and therefore in control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

This must not be allowed to happen. However, by failing to address the many injustices perpetrated against Muslim populations in Palestine and Chechnya, to give two examples, and by making illegal and inhumane bombing attacks against targets in Pakistan, as the USA has done in recent months, we are giving the Pakistani Jihadists their best weapon: ongoing injustices to point to, which inflame the hearts of young Muslims, and lead them to seek training in Jihadist camps, and then to launch attacks on civilian targets.

We can’t bomb Pakistanis into liking us, and working with us. They will like us if we respect the rule of law, hold fast to our collective belief in the power and inherent virtue of freedom, defend our constitutional and mandated rights and defend theirs as well, we will win the respect and friendship of the majority who want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours.

Q. 8) Why doesn’t America do something, if it knows that these terrorists are being trained in Pakistan?
A. 8) This is a big question, and it requires a fairly long answer. Political administrations in the USA during the last 50 years have seen Soviet Russia as their principal enemy, because Soviet Russia had many hundreds of nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, aimed at sites in the USA. No other country had the potential to inflict as much damage on the USA as Soviet Russia, so all the foreign policy decisions of the USA were shaped and determined by the fear of these great weapons. Any country or social or religious group that was against Soviet Russia was, in that fear-crazed mindset, a friend of the USA.

For that reason, the USA found itself supporting vicious military dictatorships in South America, for example, because the dictators were anti-communist. For that reason, President Nixon went to China and reached a rapprochement with Mao’s communist party, because Mao’s China hated and feared the Soviet Union almost as much as the Americans did. And for that reason, the USA made alliances with Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, because those extremists hated Soviet Russia for its repression of their religion.

Similarly, that mindset allowed the USA to support military dictators in Pakistan, because the dictators were against Soviet Russia. And because India insisted on being non-aligned – was in fact the founder of the Non-Aligned Movement of Nations – and spoke to Soviet Russia as often and openly as it spoke to the USA, India was judged to be an enemy nation. Thus, America turned away from the world’s largest democracy, and aligned itself with Pakistan, arming the army of the dictators with the most sophisticated weapons, and turning a blind eye to the extremism of the Jihadist training camps. When Pakistan asked for nuclear weapons, the USA agreed and secretly helped them to achieve a nuclear status, because they saw Pakistan as a base from which a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union could be launched, if necessary.

The problem for the USA, now, is that the new, fragile, democratically elected government of Pakistan – which has control of the nuclear weapons that America helped Pakistan to develop – has no real control over the Jihadist elements in Pakistan. And as the USA makes drone attacks against Jihadist bases and camps on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, in a desperate attempt to kill Usama bin Laden and to limit the strike potential of the Jihadists, they are weakening the power of the central government even further, and arousing even more resentment from the Jihadists.

This situation is tragic for many reasons – but not least because if you go to Pakistan, as I’ve done, and meet the people there in villages and cities, you’ll discover that they are wonderful people with a wonderfully affectionate and respectful way of being with you. What’s more, there are literally millions of people in Pakistan who despise the cowardly violence of Jihadists, and who have risked their lives to pull their country out of the hands of military dictators. It’s those voices – the voices of millions upon millions of moderate, peaceful Pakistanis – that America, and the rest of us, should be supporting.

Q. 9) What can we do about these terror attacks?
A. 9) We can do 6 things:

1) Address the injustices that provoke these attacks. Jihadists do NOT make attacks because they are poor, as Barack Obama said during his campaign for the presidency, or because we are free, as Bush2 said after 911. They make the attacks because of the injustices suffered by Muslims in 5 main places. When Israel cuts off the water, food, electricity, medicines, and even sewage control from the Palestinians in Gaza – no matter what the provocation – they are giving the Jihadists their most potent weapon: injustice. Cutting off these essential supplies is a crime against humanity, and the Jihadists know it. Because the world allows this to happen, and doesn’t defend the lives of Palestinian women and children, the Jihadists have no trouble in convincing potentially radical young Muslims that there is no alternative but violence in reaction. If we want to reduce Jihadist attacks, we must seek just solutions to the suffering endured by Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya as a matter of prime international priority. This is not just a means to achieve justice for its own sake – which it most certainly is – but also an essential step towards reducing violence across the world. If action on these sources of injustice is done, and seen to be done, the best weapon of the Jihadists will be removed, and new recruits to their ranks will be much harder to find.

2) Seek out and close down the Jihadist camps in Pakistan.

3) Prevent Jihadist elements in Saudi Arabia from providing the money that is used to pay for Jihadist training and activity. Almost all the money that pays for Jihadist attacks comes from Saudi Arabia. This is a historical reality. When the British government created the nation of Saudi Arabia, and created a royal family to rule it, The House of Saud, the Bedouin Wahabbists – who follow an extreme form of Islam, that underpins Jihadism – were recruited to support the weak royal family. In exchange for the support of the warrior Wahabbis, the Saudi royal family agreed to support the Wahabbist Jihad agenda across the world. Almost every Koran carried by a Jihadist is printed in Saudi Arabia, and almost every dollar in their pockets comes from Saudi Arabia. If we want the attacks to reduce, and finally to sop, we have to choke off this supply of money from Saudi Arabia, and we have to support the moderate, democratic forces that could, eventually, bring these Wahabbist elements under control.

4) Preserve and defend our own democratic institutions and our constitutional and mandated rights. We must be the living example of what we believe, and never allow the Jihadists to determine what rights we have, or how free we are. In the long run, if our societies continue to be free and democratic, and vigorously defend the human rights of ALL human beings, that way of life will be the best answer to the repressive paradigm being promoted by the Jihadists. Every time we chip away at our own rights or freedoms, we prove the Jihadists right. Every time we stand up for human rights – even the human rights of the Jihadists who attack us – we prove them wrong.

5) Support moderate and democratic elements in all countries, everywhere – especially in countries with large Muslim majorities. When Bush2 named Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil”, he delivered a severe blow to the moderate and democratic elements in Iranian society, and created a weapon that the repressive regime could use against them. That reaction set the movement toward democracy back in Iran by a generation, with a single sentence. We have to believe what we preach, and never allow ourselves to be hypocrites. When the people of Palestine voted for a Hamas-led government in a free and fair election, the western countries that preach so long and hard about democracy refused to accept the result. That hypocrisy gave the Jihadists an extremely powerful weapon to use: they could point to the western governments and say: “See, they don’t really believe in democracy, and if you follow them, and vote for someone they don’t like, they will do everything to bring you down.”. We must believe sincerely, and support every moderate and democratic voice raised across the world, even when the results of that democratic election don’t give us results we like. In the long run of history, if we support democracy without wavering, even when the result isn’t something we like, people will always be more free, because they will always have the chance to choose a new government – perhaps one that we do like better.

6) We must not aggrandize the vicious acts of the Jihadists with the term “terror”. In the first place, the term “War on Terror” is an oxymoron: war IS terror, so the phrase means a “Terror on Terror”, and that’s exactly the wrong approach, if our objective is to end the violence and weaken the power of the Jihadists. What me must do is to insist that these crimes are just that – vicious and cowardly CRIMES – and that they will be prosecuted in criminal courts that are fair and open, and that preserve the rights of all – even of the Jihadists who appear in them. We must refer to the Jihadists as Jihadist criminals, rather than Jihadist terrorists, because every time we use the word terror in describing them and their acts, we give them more power and authority than their cowardly, craven crimes deserve.

Q. 10) What can we do to help India after these attacks?
A. 10) Keep the faith. Let the flames die down, let the smoke clear, and then don’t abandon your plan to visit India for a holiday. Go there. See the people, and spend time with them. Buy Indian products, buy and listen to Indian music CDs, buy and watch Indian movies, and ask your company that does business with India to stay the course and keep the faith with the country. Donate to recognized charities that do good work in India. In your own country, go down to a local store or restaurant that is run by Indians in your city, and tell them that you care, and you feel sorry for what has happened in Bombay. Resist the attempts of politicians to reduce your rights and freedoms in the name of the “war on terror”. Be loving to one another, wherever you are. Talk about peace and freedom and music and art and literature. And remind yourself, and those you cherish, that in every city in the world there are millions of beautiful, positive, creative actions done every hour, for each act of violence done every month.

Love and best wishes, Gregory David Roberts.