Q&A with Mideast expert: Israel is 'nucleus of Planet Earth'

Australian academic says, "you don’t need to be Jewish to recognize Israel’s right to exist; you just need to be rational."

By CAROLINE FRANK
People waving Israeli flags march in a pro-Israeli demonstration in support of Israel in August 2014. (photo credit: REUTERS)
People waving Israeli flags march in a pro-Israeli demonstration in support of Israel in August 2014.
(photo credit: REUTERS)
With the rise of global terrorism, The Jerusalem Post Premium Zone spoke with Australian political editor, academic and Middle East studies expert Sherry Sufi to shed light on the Arab-Israeli conflict from an Australian perspective.
Fluent in English, Arabic, Urdu and Hindi, Sufi reflects on issues concerning national security, counter-terrorism, defense and foreign affairs.
Do you believe it possible to be a Zionist Muslim? If yes, why do you support Israel?
Zionism, the notion that Jewish people ought to have their own national homeland, is one of many nationalist movements from around the world which embodies the colonial pressures of its time-frame and is comparable in character to calls for the establishment of a national homeland for the Muslims of British India. If Muhammad Ali Jinnah was right to lobby for Pakistan, so was Chaim Weizmann, to lobby for Israel. You don’t need to be Jewish to recognize Israel’s right to exist. You just need to be rational.
Why is Israel relevant to Australia?
Israel is the nucleus of Planet Earth. Besides the fact that Jerusalem is sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims, Israel lies at the crossroads between Europe, Africa and Asia which is an indication of its geopolitical significance. What happens in Israel will ultimately affect the rest of the world, which includes Australia. The relationship between the two nations goes back to joint participation in the Battle of Beersheba in World War I. Those who stand to oppose Israel concurrently stand to oppose the political institutions that define the basic fabric of modern Australian society. Given Israel’s commitment to freedom and democracy, it remains our closest ally in the Middle East due to our shared values.
Why do you think so many Australian citizenship holders are being attracted to sneak overseas to join ISIS and what can the Australian Government do to combat this frightening surge?
Migration from low socio-economic demographics from Islamic countries combined with poor education, lack of encouragement on the part of religious leaders to embrace modern values and dire unawareness of the intellectual history of Western civilization are the factors that lead to increasing disenfranchisement, which sets the pretext that allows the emergence of these foreign fighters that seek an alternative lifestyle that thrives on rebellion against the establishment they view as a flawed social order. The Abbott Government has put measures in place that adequately equip our law enforcement agencies to deal with foreign fighters, though a greater role needs to be played by leaders of various Islamic communities in order to inspire a reform from within. 
Do you think the values of Islam promote violence?
While Islam does preach relative tolerance and compassion, it is certainly not a ‘turn the other cheek’ style pacifistic religion. Its primary source scripture contains strict penal codes for the violation of its laws which could be construed as violent through 21st century spectacles. Its punishments tend to be more retributive as opposed to rehabilitative by nature. As a product of the 7th century when there was no international law, no Warsaw Pact and no Geneva Convention, Islam’s political character reflects many of the norms of its founding period and legitimacy for warfare can be found within its primary source scripture, just as it can be found in Deuteronomy Chapter 20 in the Torah. The difference is, Jewish communities in the present era do not evoke those teachings with a blackletter interpretation whereas such elements continue to be found among pockets of Islamic communities worldwide, both within and outside of the Islamic world.
What is it about Islam that causes people to warp the meaning of the Koran and use it to incite terror?
In modern political context, terrorism is the use of violence in an unprovoked attack against civilians under no state of war in pursuit of political objectives. It is true that certain parts of the Koran can and are interpreted by terrorists to incite terror and this is something the mainstream scholars of Islam need to combat from within in a similar manner as Protestant Reformer Martin Luther’s efforts against the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church so that the voices of reason are heard louder than the voices of terror.
Does the Arab-Israeli conflict have more to do with religion or nationalism, assuming those are two different things?
For different stakeholders, the Arab-Israeli conflict holds different meanings. Given that being a ‘Jew’ is both an ethnicity and a religion, if one supports the idea of a Jewish State on ethnic grounds, then that is nationalism. If one supports the idea because God allegedly promised the Jews the Holy Land in the Torah, then that is religion. The same can be said of the Arab side in the conflict. If Arabs say Palestinians deserve their own national homeland because they are a distinct sub-variety of the Arabs that have resided in Palestine for centuries, then that is nationalism. If Muslim Arabs say they must control Jerusalem because of al-Aksa Mosque, then that is religion.
The interesting point is, if from the Arab perspective this was about religion then why did the Arabs conspire with the British and the French to dismantle the Ottoman Empire? Clearly, neither did they care about Islam or Muslims, nor was “Palestinian” nationalism an issue at the time. The “Palestinians” were all simply Arabs who lived in the Ottoman Empire. When “Palestine” became a British mandate between 1920 and 1948, that was when the idea of a Palestinian identity began to emerge, largely in reaction to Jewish immigration from Europe. In this sense, the idea of a “Palestinian” identity is a structural consequence of British colonialism.
Do you see the settlements in the West Bank as illegal? What is your position on the two–state solution?
No question of legalities on an issue as sensitive as this can be addressed without proper historical context. The reality is, the Jews accepted the UN Partition Plan, the Arabs not only rejected it, they have since waged multiple wars and lost every single time. This is what has continually led to the gradual expansion of Israel’s boundaries beyond the original recommendations. The most notable of these was the 1967 Six Day War. Although it is unconventional practice to return land captured after winning a war, Israel has exercised magnanimity on multiple occasions and returned land in the name of good will. The withdrawal from Sinai, a notable example. Most recently, Israel’s 2005 Disengagement Plan sought to withdraw 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank on condition that the Palestinian use of terrorism against Israel would cease. It did not. Thus the conflict continues, unfortunately. 
Where do you think the Arab nations would be if they had accepted the UN Partition Plan of 1947, giving the Palestinians an Arab state in which to live?
The 1947 UN Resolution for Palestine 181(II) recommended the creation of two independent states side by side, one for Palestinian Arabs and another for the Jews, which was not dissimilar to the partition of India and Pakistan. Jerusalem was to be under special international administration. This plan sought to satisfy the objectives of two diametrically opposed movements, Palestinian nationalism and Zionism. The plan proposed the protection of minority rights. Had it been accepted, multiple wars could have been avoided, hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of this bitter conflict would have been saved, and there is no reason to think that the two states would not have been prosperous and managed to co-exist side by side.
Hamas controls the Gaza Strip; its founding doctrine calls for the eradication of the State of Israel – do you see a future peace in the Middle East – between the Palestinians and Israel with such ideologies circulating?
No, not with such ideologies circulating. Israel is a powerful nation. No threats to eradicate the State of Israel will make an inch of difference to resolving this conflict. In order for there to be any hope for a resolution, all use of violence against unarmed civilians must stop. Interpretations of Islam which encourage peaceful dialogue must become the louder voice than such interpretations that remain amenable to being exploited by terrorists.
Should Israel negotiate with a terrorist organization?
The Palestinians need more mature leadership. At present, they are being exploited by their own democratic choice, Hamas, as human shields when rockets are fired from civilian areas and innocent Palestinians are told to remain where they are. Clearly, Hamas is not acting in the best interests of the very people it claims to be representing. This organization is manipulating its own people and with it, destroying all prospects of a peaceful resolution. In order for there to be peace, violence against Israeli civilians must cease at once and a reformed Palestinian people, represented by civilized leadership must come forward to have this matter resolved at a round table with pen and paper, not on the battlefield with guns and grenades.  
Sherry Sufi holds a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Master of Arts in Politics and International Studies and Master of History from the University of New England. His PhD thesis investigates the extent to which common language shapes a community’s ethnic or national identities.


Related Tags
Islam Israel