In From Beirut to Jerusalem, Thomas Friedman writes that Arab Palestinians were shuffled between Syria and Lebanon following World War II. The PLO evolved and became a symbol not just of the Muslim voice, but of a growing (international) sense of Muslim disenfranchisement. He has been criticized for it, but that's probably why Columbia University scholar Rashid Khalidi wrote that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is central to the Arab identity.
Today, the Hindu carries a short story called "Pakistan invokes the K word." The K-word is "Kashmir," the contested borderland between India and Pakistan. Originally granted to India by international convention, Pakistanis believe Kashmir should belong to them and refer to it as "Indian-occupied." Military clashes are common along the border.
The question is: is Kashmir turning into a new Gaza Strip? A central stalemate and a romanticized ideal for both sides? A built-up store of resentments that no geographical boundary will ever be able to resolve? (It's already gone a long way in this direction - terrorism has made the region almost uninhabitable.)
And what role do journalists have in the creation and maintenance of such a dispute?
Ponder this: the Hindu article is titled "Pakistan invokes the K Word." In fact, Pakistan invoked the K word after agreeing to ban a militant group, and the delegate only pushed for a "resolution." On the surface, this was not intolerant.
Meanwhile, Ghazali blames the US for reshaping Pakistan. In fact, it's the Pushtu tribes along the Pakistan-Afghan border who are pushing for more territory, and might in future get it.
The point is, neither of these articles seems completely honest, but both contribute to a sense of a 'threatened' Pakistan, territory beset on all sides. This is exactly how resentments and fears breed monsters. We've already seen it happen to a greater extent in the Middle East.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment