UK Guardian: Bringing God to the protest won't help the cause

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/05/israel-palestine-gaza-demo-london

On Saturday I attended the London demo held in solidarity for the people of Gaza. I realise that is enough to set off an argument worth 300 comments but I'm not interested in having that discussion for now. You're welcome to read my writings on PP or LC. I attended the demo, I support Palestinian self-determination, I support the right for Israel to exist, and I oppose the invasion of Gaza. End of story. My quibble is more with some aspects of the demo itself. Wandering around and taking pictures I didn't hear anything antisemitic, which was a relief. A bunch of "rudeboys" with their faces covered by bandanas performed like monkeys for the television cameras as usual. The atmosphere was generally light, even while charged with emotion. Not many cheered when George Galloway was introduced (thank God for small mercies).

I had an uncomfortable feeling I couldn't articulate until I was leaving via Charing Cross tube. It was crowded inside as we made our way to the trains. Two girls started to chant "We are Hamas" (I'm not, thank you very much) but were almost immediately drowned out by "Free free Palestine" before I had the chance to get annoyed. And then it came: Allah hu Akbar, Allah hu Akbar on repeat. Our fellow white travellers said little.

And therein lies my problem. I came to the march to express solidarity with Palestinians and express my anger at Israel's bombings. I didn't come to express solidarity with Hamas, nor want to come to a religious march. If I wanted to hear "God is Great" I could have gone to a mosque or a gurudwara. But I didn't. People can say what they want – freedom of speech etc – but I think this encapsulates a broader problem.

British Muslim organisations have broadly failed to capitalise on the widespread support for Palestinians in the UK, compared to the United States, by constantly bringing religion into a dispute essentially about land.

[enlightenment]

1. While I appreciate your perspective - and

agree that both sides have valid grievances, I suspect if you had attended a 'pro-Israel' demo you would have heard similar religious sentiment.

Both sides incorporate religion into their politics and both use religious justifications to rationalize their actions.

I'm tempted to say that the real root of the problem is religion, not land - the land is just the stage on which the conflict is being played out.

[T_i_B]

5. Well it's not so much my perspective...

..as that of one of Britain's top bloggers, who supports the Palestinian cause. I've witnessed these anti-Israel demo's in Trafalgar Square before and have no wish to get involved with either side myself.

I can certainly sympathize with what Sunny Hundal is saying about evangelical Islam being offputting to others on a protest but ultimatly yes, it is as much about religion as it is about land and as such you can't get away from the religious factor. I don't think there's any getting away from that fact.

[enlightenment]

6. Whoops. Sorry about that.

Misread your post and thought you had gone to the rally.

My 'both sides now' sensibility has been on hyper-alert for the last few days, leading me to jump without looking.

Apologies.

[T_i_B]

9. Don't worry mate :-)

I didn't post any of my own comments which I perhaps should have done.

Mind you, my own 'both sides now' sensibility does usually lead me to keep away from the I/P forum so I'll only post something if I think it's really worth it and the above article certainly fits that bill, even if I don't agree with it 100%.

[MADem]

2. You can't separate the two when you're dealing with this matter.

Or any matters that are hot button in the "Islamic world." Even the Palestinian Christians aren't going to push back against that attitude. Nor are the Lebanese Christians. Or the Egyptian ones. Or the Syrian ones....

The very nature of ISLAM doesn't see a distinction between religion and government. They're all of a piece. It's why Iran went from being a Faux Constitutional Democracy (in actual fact, a Benevolent Dictatorship) to an ISLAMIC Republic operating under religious governmental laws when there was a religiously-based overthrow of the government.

It's not a question of "capitalising" on support, really. It is a foundational distinction. They might kick over the traces to get what they want, and play a secular game, but that religious-government attitude remains operant under the surface. It's no use getting angry about it, either, because it just is what it is...it's like apple pie and ice cream, in that culture. Religion and government just ....go together.

It's not the way I was raised, either. But it's unlikely that you'll change any hearts or minds who like that way of doing business.

[AnOhioan]

7. I have to disagree with one part of your post

Iran went to a theocracy because the CIA and Britain overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (hardly a benevolent dictator) in his place. After years of harsh rule and elimination of political opposition, the Iranian people forced the Shah to flee.

The Ayatollah Khomeini became the leader of Iran and the rest is history.

If Mossadegh had not been the victim of regime change, if the Shah had not been as brutal, maybe Iran would look different than it does today.

The citizens of Turkey are Muslim to an overwhelming extent, yet their gov't is secualr and has been since 1923.

I do not think that Islam sees no distinction between religion and gov't. Some Muslims, yes, but not the religion as a whole.

[MADem]

8. Well, I was shorthanding the Iran history. I used to live there. There's actually more to it.

Mossadeq wouldn't have had any better luck than the Shah. The mullahs were pissed about land reform. All the land was flowing from them to the state, and they weren't liking that. Land redistribution would have continued no matter if it had been Shah or Mossadeq at the helm.

The Ulema would have made trouble if Iran had installed a Persian Mother Theresa as President for Life. They lusted for power, they bided their time, and they consolidated their power when the time was right. Khomeini used to make these tapes in Iraq, and send them over the border. People would play them from the rooftops at night. When he got to be a real pain, Saddam kicked him out of Iraq, he went to Iran,(edit--by way of Paris) and the rest is history.

You should give Turkey a closer look. Every time the government gets too religious (as it has lately), too commie, too crazy, the citizenry wake up one morning and a smiling general has taken over the country "for a temporary period" in order to get the joint back on the Ataturkian track.

It's sort of a halfassed democracy that is interrupted by periods of brief military dictatorship. For that end of the world, though, it's not all that bad....if you're not a Kurd, anyway.

And Islam doesn't see a distinction, really. They think that there is no line between government and religion. It's in the Quran. See here (bit of a struggle, it's boring): http://www.islam101.com/politics/politicalsystem.htm

[LeftishBrit]

3. Interesting points

My own view is that both sides suffer from accepting alliances with right-wing groups.

Pro-Israel people with American hawks and their supporters; Christian Zionists; Jewish religious-righties (not as large a force as they're often portrayed as being, but still a significant one); and frank Islamophobes.

Pro-Palestinian people with Muslim-righties; Arab hardliners who use them as pawns; isolationist xenophobes; and frank antisemites.

With friends like that, they hardly need each other as enemies.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. I've been to a ton of protests in the past 20 years and must say...

it's the first time I've ever heard Allahu Akbar chanted.

I have heard it at 2 demos in Philly and was shocked.

I think it speaks to the measure of desperation... Also, please remember that for Arab Muslims "Allahu Akbar" is not a curse or a call for violence...

It does seem to be the "people's chant" in this war though!