The recent atrocities committed in Mumbai,
India in the name of the ongoing quest for the spread of the Arab and Arabizeds’
Dar ul-Islam is merely a continuation of a war waged by Muhammed’s
followers for about fourteen centuries now against the Dar al-Harb…the
realm of war, i.e. all peoples and lands not yet conquered either in the
name of what Arab pipedreams proclaim to be “purely Arab patrimony” or the faith
of the Arabs’ Seal of the Prophets.
As Arab armies burst out of
the Arabian Peninsula around the mid-7th century C.E., lands native
to other Semitic but non-Arab peoples (despite the wishful thinking of those who
espouse the Winkler-Caetani Theory--Jews, Assyrians, Phoenicians/Lebanese,
etc.), Copts, Berbers, Kurds, Persians and other Aryan peoples, Turks, black
Africans, Indians, and others fell one after another to Arab and Arabized
imperial conquests. Numerous millions of people were slaughtered in the
process--continuing to this very day. Others willingly jumped on the Arab
bandwagon to gain shares of the conquests.
Muhammad of Gaur first spread the Dar ul-Islam into India in the 12th
century C.E., and the highlight of these conquests came with the Moghul Empire
several centuries later.
The results were
lasting, and the partition of the Indian subcontinent into a Muslim Pakistan and
largely Hindu India in 1947 reflected this. During that same year, Arabs would
reject a similar partition of what was left of the original 1920 Mandate of
Palestine after Arab Jordan was created from nearly 80% of it in 1922. Had Arabs
accepted this, they would have wound up with about 90% of the whole with the
creation of their 2nd, not 1st, Arab state in
“Palestine”--the name the Roman Emperor Hadrian gave to Judaea after the Jews'
second revolt for freedom in 133-135 C.E.
There are, indeed, similarities between what Israel faces in Judea and Samaria
today--renamed, as a result of 20th century British imperialism and
Jordanian Arab conquest, the “West Bank"--and what India faces in Kashmir and
elsewhere. The one big difference, of course, is that there are about one
billion Indians (who were never earlier subjected to a forced diaspora like the
Jews were after taking on Rome) instead of some six million Jews facing similar
threats from Arab and/or Arabized.
the years, more and more Indians themselves have begun to notice this. As they
do, they see the linkage between Arabs blowing up Jews on buses and restaurants,
and Arabized Pakistanis blowing up and massacring Hindus and others in
Parliament and in hotels in Mumbai.
moving on, something else must be said about those partitions of the Mandate of
Palestine and the Indian subcontinent mentioned
While working for the liberation
of India from British imperial occupation, Mohandas Gandhi opposed the partition
of the Indian subcontinent into a Hindu India and a Muslim Pakistan. He believed
that people of all religious faiths should be able to get along in the same
nation. He was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist.
So much for getting along…Some
places it works, some places it's laughable. The Mahatma didn’t
understand the nature of the enemy he was facing…an enemy who sees justice only
in terms of its own ilk.
Zionism--the national liberation movement of the Jews--to the very end; his
major statement circulated as an editorial in the Harijan of November 11,
1938. Among other things, while first professing his supposed "sympathies" for
perennially persecuted Jews, he next claimed that...
Palestine of the biblical conception is not a geographical
Actually, he did get that one right.
Palestine wasn't...It represented a vague geographical area according to
the ancient Greeks.
As mentioned above,
the name itself was bestowed on Judaea--the defined land of the
Jews--by Hadrian, after the Jews' second major war (133-135 C.E.) for their
independence against the Romans. To squash their hopes once and for all, he
renamed the land itself after their historic enemies, the Philistines (Syria
Palaestina), a non-Semitic Greek people from the area around the Aegean
But Israel and Judaea were well-known
nations/kingdoms peopled by Hebrews/Jews. As just one of many examples, the
Habiru/Apiru--Hebrews--were written about throughout the extensive
correspondence of ancient Pharaohs, their vassals, and others as well. And these
folks evolved into a separate people with their own unique culture, language,
history--and, yes, religion too. Gandhi saw the religious claims of Jews
as their main, if not only, leg to stand on in this conflict...which he
But the differences which
separated Jews from Arabs were not simply theological. While Gandhi still has
plenty of company here in his booboo (including academics), this doesn't excuse
it. What made matters worse, if you don't really know, you shouldn't really
say...especially if you see yourself, or are seen by others, as a major voice
for justice and morality in this world.
With all due respect to a man whom I otherwise greatly admire, Gandhi knew about
as much about Jews and their history as most Jews know about the various Indian
peoples. The difference, however, is that Jews would never have told the latter
to remain forever victimized and at the potential receiving end of those with a
long history of bloody conquest and
While it would be nice if we
all just really "got along," and there was no need for nationalism, national
borders, and such, the reality is that this belief is too often fiction--and
especially when it comes to the millennial Jewish experience...something Gandhi
acknowledged himself when admitting "his sympathies."
What else is new? In a post-Auschwitz
age, people may grudgingly cry crocodile tears for dead Jews (a la the Holocaust
and such), but have no room for empathy for live
Listen to Gandhi again:
However...my sympathy does not blind me to the
requirements of justice...why should they (Jews) not, like other
peoples...make that country their home where they are born...?
I guess he hadn't heard of the Dreyfus
Affair in "enlightened" France, or had not seen pictures of Jews waving their
medals from World War I in front of the Nazis, or had not heard of General
Grant's order of expulsion for the Jews of the South during America‘s Civil War,
or of the Damascus Blood Libel in 19th century Arab Syria, etc., etc., and so
forth…Again, what you don’t really know, you really shouldn’t comment
Imagine, for one moment, that
India--as massive as it is--underwent the experiences that the Jews in their
tiny state did in their fight for freedom and independence against an imperial
power like Rome, culminating in much of the population massacred and most of the
rest forcibly exiled in that great Diaspora already mentioned.
Next, imagine that those hypothetical
Indians (like those real Jews) in almost everywhere that they eventually
landed--the Muslim East as well as the Christian West--never knew what the
morrow would bring...massacres, forced conversions, expulsions, ghettoization
(the mellah in the Arab world), demonization, and such culminating in a
holocaust which wiped out one third of all Indian
Would Jews insist that Indians
remain forever at someone else's mercy and give up on a resurrected national
existence simply in order to survive?
think not. Yet that's what Gandhi expected of Jews. Einstein had a famous
disagreement with Gandhi over this. So I'm in good
Unlike Indians, Jews were
literally forced into those above positions and had earlier tried desperately to
follow Gandhi’s advice to be "accepted"... but to no avail. As nasty as some
aspects of the British Raj were, they do not compare to those millennial
experiences of stateless Jews.
real question that the Mahatma and others needed to ask
Is a victim any less a victim
because his victimization has been the longest and most enduring?
Should Jews (those above
victims) have not wanted something better for their children? Should they
have continued to put their trust only in those who declared them to be
G_d-killers, children of the Devil, killers of Prophets, sons of apes and pigs,
dogs, and such with periodic and predictable
Sadly, the otherwise wise
Gandhi thought so.
Take a look below at
how the ancient historians saw this identity issue. Here's a few of my favorite
quotes from Vol. II, Book V The Works Of Tacitus, which discussed the
Jews' first major revolt in 66-73 C.E. for their freedom and independence
against the Soviet Union (or British Empire, Mr. Gandhi)--of its day, Rome.
There were others (Dio Cassius, Josephus, etc.) who wrote about such things as
well: It inflamed Vespasian's resentment that the Jews were the only nation who
had not yet submitted...Titus was appointed by his father to complete the
subjugation of Judaea... he commanded three legions in Judaea itself... To these
he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from
Alexandria... amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves
and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between
No, Rome was not just referring to the Jews'
religious identity, which Gandhi spoke of, here, but to a distinct
nation and people. If
Indians can have a homeland, and Arabs almost two dozen created mostly via
conquest of non-Arab peoples’ lands, then why single out and deny Jews their
miniscule, resurrected one?
Towards the end of
the movie made about Gandhi starring Ben Kingsley, there's a telling scene.
Numerous people are seen walking in opposite directions, depicting the
population exchange involving many millions of people going on after the Indian
subcontinent's first partition.
thing happened after the Arabs' attack on a reborn Israel in 1948.
For every Arab refugee created as a
result of this, there was a Jewish refugee fleeing Arab/Muslim lands--where they
were commonly known as kilab yahud...Jew dogs. Unlike Arabs, however, the
Jews didn't have almost two dozen other states (again, most conquered from
non-Arab peoples) to choose from.
in India and elsewhere who still demand that Israel agree to suicide so that
Arabs can have yet another state must also take the following into
How about allowing the
creation of yet another Muslim state on Gandhi's own Indian
subcontinent--besides Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Not that I agree with this (I
obviously don‘t), but there are still Indians today making the same
arguments that Gandhi made earlier in terms of Israel and Zionism. And there
are, after all, about 160 million Muslims in
India... With each new
Arab or Arabized atrocity against India, those anti-Israel voices become
fewer and fewer, but the ignorance leading up to those earlier positions must
nonetheless be confronted head on.
wars of the Dar ul-Islam and/or Arabism target any and all who dare stand in
their murderous, subjugating way--be they in Kosovo, Darfur, Kurdistan, Israel,
Lebanon, Egypt, the Philippines, Thailand, North Africa, and elsewhere…including
India. The war against what Arabs call “their” kilab yahud--Jew dogs--has
never been how big Israel is --but that Israel is.
Jews were murdered along with Hindus and
others recently in Mumbai. Reports from Indian officials stated that the Jews
were singled out for special torture… a rabbi and his pregnant wife included.
The couple’s bloodied two-year old son had been clinging to his mother’s body
and was saved by his Indian nanny.
at last, one final thought (for now, at least) on these
I’m hoping that, in death, this
latest tragedy, committed in the name of the Dar ul-Islam, will bring closer
together both India and the Jew of the Nations--Israel--to confront a
common enemy which refuses to grant any justice whatsoever to any but its
Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive
doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and
conducted counter-propaganda programs for college youth, has
lectured on numerous university campuses and other platforms,
and has publicly debated many anti-Israel spokesmen. His
articles and op-eds have been published in hundreds of
newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites around the
world. His official website is:
Our special thanks to the author for submitting this article.A. G. S.