The tragedies suffered overwhelmingly by the Palestinians are well documented for those who want to see, just as the obscene imbalance of the moral equation can be witnessed by the whole world if it should exercise its moral judgment.

An analogy that's been used before (though not to this issue specifically) is that of a child who's been pushed into a deep well. It is a universal human wrong, plain for those whose primary concern is human rights, to see such an injustice as an injustice, regardless of one's background. The only other comparison to Israel with respect to its abuses of universal moral principles and laws was apartheid South Africa, opposition to which was near-universal.

In the case of Palestine, what are the sources of injustices seen by mainstream observers (Jewish and Gentile)? The Israeli leadership's intransigence on the issues of: (1) the borders of a Palestinian state; (2) the Israeli settlements; (3) the city of Jerusalem; (4) water (A crucial source of Israel's water is its water aquifers. Most of them, however, are situated within that part of the West Bank annexed by Israel); (5) the question of Palestinian refugees, and (6) the occupation of West bank and Gaza and the obscene use of overwhelming force therein.

This has to be realised by anybody who professes a concern for human rights and human dignity. Ordinary Malaysians are not much different than ordinary citizens around the world with their general ignorance of and apathy towards global affairs. Unless I've read AB Suleiman wrongly, the impression he has made of himself (on this issue) is as a liberal intellectual taking a stand and calling on Muslims to adopt, a moral relativism in the guise of a 'balanced view'.

Individuals and organisations concerned about human rights (I assume Suleiman is) should see human wrongs when these are committed, and condemn them as such.

Behind the times

Related to this point is Suleiman's lament that Malaysia has not accorded Israel even 'an element of respectability.'

This is not the right place (assuming Suleiman is suggesting official recognition) to debate whether or not Malaysia should join the other 161 governments worldwide, according to the Israeli foreign affairs ministry, that have established relations with Israel.

Suleiman is correct if he also assumes that Malaysia is behind the times, since 13 countries established relations since the signing of the Oslo accords of 1993.

The distinction that needs to be emphasised here is between the official diplomacy of governments and the world wide body of civil societies. Civil societies have, in overwhelming numbers, expressed and acted in support of the Palestinians' struggle.

Just take the case within Israel: 400,000 ordinary Israelis took to the streets in protest against the massacre of Sabra and Shatila. Last month, 10,000 outraged Israelis demonstrated in front of the Ministry of Defense within hours of the military's onslaught in Rafah.

Furthermore, since Suleiman would reject the opinion of Muslims who are 'socio-politically, historically, and theologically' predisposed to hate Jews (Though Suleiman would undoubtedly lump Christian Palestinian intellectuals and activists like the late Edward Said and Hannan Ashrawi together with the Muslims), let's consider the opinions of a people more civilized, objective, less emotional, and without deep-seated prejudices.

Let's listen to what the Europeans have to say shall we?

Last November, the majority (59%) of 7,500 Europeans (500 from each of the EU's 15 member countries) who were asked which country they thought was a threat to world peace replied "Israel".

What, Europeans are actually irrationally and inherently anti-Semitic as well? Then, it would be a mimicry of Rabbi Marvin Hierof, founder of the Jewish human rights and lobbying group, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, who said,

"This poll is an indication that Europeans have bought in, "hook, line and sinker", to the vilification and demonisation campaign directed against the state of Israel and her supporters by European leaders and media".

Wrong, Rabbi Marvin. It's the occupation. It's the overwhelming use of force. It's the apartheid wall. It's the 3,000 Palestinian/400 Israeli deaths within the last hour years. The 1,174 demolition of Palestinian houses. It's the nuclear arsenal that Israel says doesn't exist. It's the 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.

Clear moral vision

If the issue seems clouded, there are two possible reasons:

Firstly, one's view may be obstructed by the refusal to clear the cobwebs in the mind when thinking about the conflict. The 'pitch' purported to represent the views of the respective parties to the conflict are frustratingly out of date, taking the issue twenty steps back and without taking into consideration the progress of historical scholarship as well as political developments among the antagonists.

Suleiman's assertion about the Roots of Prejudice, particularly his use of incident of Banu Qurayzah as one of the first examples of Muslims' supposed hatred of Jews, illustrates my point. With one sweep, Suleiman has effectively set a misleading, if not dishonest, tone for the whole of Muslim-Jewish history. According to Suleiman, "one of the earliest reprisals recorded was in April 627, following the Battle of the Trench when Prophet Muhammad captured the stronghold of the Jewish tribe of Korayza/Qurayzah. In the market place and in the Prophet's presence, more than 700 Jewish captives were beheaded. The women and children were sold as slaves."

Without even a pretended depth, Suleiman has failed to mention: (1) the vehement opposition, discredit, and incredulity with which the story has been received by such towering figures of Islamic scholarship and jurisprudence as Imam Malik and Ibn Hajar; (2) the weak basis from which the incident is usually cited - Ibn Ishaq; (3) the impossibility of so many Jews killed at once without any more than a very brief (in fact, a single line) reference to the incident in the Qur'an; (4) the contradiction with the Qur'anic principle that innocent persons are not to be punished for the crimes of others as well as the Qur'anic conduct of war; (5) the uncanny resemblance, down to some extraordinary details, of stories in the Jewish sources centuries before the advent of Islam, reflecting the Jewish roots of the story without any strong basis in Islam; (6) that the issue had been raised and settled in an article dating almost 30 years in (again, mainstream academia) a 1976 issue of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Suleiman's implicit assertion that the incident set the tone for the subsequent history of strained, when not violent, relations between Jews and Muslims is not only a misrepresentation, but a projection of Europe's historical persecution of Jewish communities grafted onto Muslim history.

The occasional conflicts between Jewish and Muslim communities do not represent the centuries in which ordinary citizens of each group coexisted and culturally benefited from each other. Otherwise, one would not be able to understand why Jewish communities fought alongside the Muslims against the onslaught of the Catholic kings of Spain in the latter's conquest of Spain.

Beyond the Banu Qurayzah incident, to repeat an assertion above, mainstream Israeli Jewish academicians, some of whom hold professorships in Israeli universities, have led the discussion

beyond the 'pitches' alluded to in the article as well as others common to discussions on the history of the conflict.

Secondly, it is the task of human rights activists and intellectuals to think and act on the strength and clarity of moral reasoning, whereas the task and nature of governments is to use moral argumentation to advance their interests. To confuse the two would be suicidal for the former, in direct benefit of the latter.

Biblical claim

Jewish and Christian Zionists' appeal for Israel's legitimacy totters on the historical claim. This has been refuted, not by prejudiced Muslims, nor by bigoted Christians, but by Israeli Jewish scholars.

That logic is refuted by another European, Roger Garaudy, who said,

"Why should the Syrians not invoke, as an historic and divine right, the promise made to their Hittite "ancestors" by the goddess Arinna, who "established the borders of the land"?

When that fails, they resort to the biblical claim of ownership over the land which also has been refuted by several Israeli Jewish scholars.

Making way for the claims all over the world for descendants of ancient empires to reassert their 'ownership' over distant lands is a recipe for disaster in the case of Palestine.

"Why should the Italians not assert "historic rights" over France, where the Romans reigned for much longer than the Kings of Israel reigned over Palestine? Why should the Scandinavians not claim Normandy, England and Sicily, in the name of their Norse-Norman "ancestors"? And what would become of Africa if its ancient conquerors were to call for the reconstitution of the Mandingo empire of the Mandingo empire or the paramount chieftaincies of the Fula?"

What's worst than a mind in the hands of an oppressor is a mind that lets itself be clobbered and confused by the moral argumentation of established interests, on the one hand, and the moral reasoning of human rights on the other. In that way, one's oppressor need not even use your mind against you. It's been blunted beyond use for any cause.

National interests are debatable, especially when the discourse is realpolitik in nature. Speaking to career politicians, bureaucrats, police or military officers or other functionaries of rule by the law about the wrongs and evils of detention without trial may be like talking to a brick wall. But individuals and organisations concerned about human rights will see human wrongs when they are committed when they are sensitive to human rights per se.

The ability to see clearly, morally, without vacillating is vital for human rights activists struggling for justice and the rule of law within Malaysia, are they not? I believe such heightened senses must also be utilized in looking at the world at large, especially the Israel-Palestine issue.

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz is a former malaysiakini journalist.