Civil Services Mains 2020 Results: In or Out ? Way ahead, gratitude and Pain
The Civils Mains result has been declared. This thread is for sharing your grief , joy , mixed feelings - absolutely anything and everything.
I think Israel and Palestine is one issue, where I'll always struggle with to take sides. I largely disagree with people try to paint this as a religious issue, when the history of the conflict tells us that its a deeply political issue. Calling it a religious issue, would assume that the Arab League and other Muslim states support the cause of Palestine, but actually when there was time to realise the Palestinian state, Arab League along with the Western powers backed out. With the recent development, we further see the waning away of the smoke screen of championing the Palestinian cause which the Arab states used.
Apart from the immediate cause of the revolt (the land rights issues surrounding the Haram-e-Sharif area), we have to keep in mind why it has to be this way. Israeli politics comes into play here. Its such an electorally and politically divided country that no party ever commands a complete majority. Likud party of Netanyahu is barely holding it together right now in a complicated coalition. As a result a lot of vote bank politics and coalition politics comes into play. Now, Netanyahu to resolve this problem, has begun openly courting the far right extremists in Israel (which by the way are in minority, though increasing). Pandering to the orthodox right involves costs. They want complete exclusion of the Palestinians from East Jerusalem which Israel has come to occupy. This is why we keep reading about the forced Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas of Jerusalem. This also explains why in 2018, Israel passed the Basic Law, declaring itself as Jewish nation state. Contrary to popular belief Israel was not formed as Jewish nation. It continues to have substantial Arab population (excluding the Palestinians). It would be also be a mistake here to generalize the entire Israeli population as ethno-nationalist, the well off cities, especially Tel Aviv, do not identify with such goals at all.
Coming to Hamas, its origin is equally troublesome. Hamas which originally formed as a sister group of Egypt based terrorist organisation Muslim Brotherhood, was actually propelled to power by support of Mossad (Israel's intel). And yes though its dubbed a terrorist organization, which practically it is, it is also a democratically elected govt. Now why would Israel support Hamas? Well, at that time the Palestinian cause was led by PLO. PLO was a secular organization, which relied on largely peaceful means of negotiation. Israel made a cold politically calculated call, and it supported the Islamic fundamentalists as a way to divide support for the PLO and to delegitimize and discredit the the Palestinian Liberation Movement in general (by painting them as extremists). That short sighted political move is now costing Israel big time, now that Hamas is a full blown militant group.
So, is Israel to be blamed for the mess that its in? Yes and no. This can be seen as a parallel to US and Taliban in Afghanistan. US supported the Mujahedeens in Afghan for it was way to get rid of the Communist control of Afghan under the Soviet, this was in the backdrop of Cold War. They supplied weapons, trained them to fight the Soviets. What followed that was the Taliban grew out of control, and eventually led to 9/11. Its kind of a similar case here. To blame US for the formation of Taliban is true, but to consider the whole 9/11 as an inside affair is a conspiracy theory. Similar is the case with Israel, this protracted asymmetric warfare will continue to stretch as long as it serves a political purpose, be it for the Palestinians, or Israel.
This morning, I came across a comment on Reddit, where some guy quoted his political science teacher on this conflict. He said (paraphrased): "If you read up on this issue for an hour, you'll be convinced the Israeli's are right. If you read for 10 hours, you'll be convinced the Palestinians are right. And if you read anymore, you won't be sure about who is right." This is the best way to put how deeply complex this issue is. If its painted as a yes or no, or simple religion against religion answer then, most often than not, we have chosen which side to defend (not saying that it is bad).
Very comprehensive (Sending it to Indian Express for “Explained” page)
14/15 (GS Mains 2021)
1 mark is deducted for writing in para(s) and not in points : )
Regarding American thing you might like to read Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.He also underlines how often pertinent criticisms are thwarted imputing them to be arising out of antisemitism.Narratives matter and the dominance of pro Israeli perceptions/sentiments in US preclude major politicians there to take the defiant path.Truman once said that arabs are not going to vote here and was advised against the Israeli state by his sec of state.Additionally , the trend of shutting down political criticism by emphasizing religious fault lines runs both the ways . For instance the issue surrounding Islamophobia
Thank you for the suggestion, will read up!
It's a well established tactic for sure. I would think Pakistan's over-reaction to the France upheaval recently would be the same tactic, except for the obvious lack of clout compared to Israel.
Villanelle,nerdfighterI think Israel and Palestine is one issue, where I'll always struggle with to take sides. I largely disagree with people try to paint this as a religious issue, when the history of the conflict tells us that its a deeply political issue. Calling it a religious issue, would assume that the Arab League and other Muslim states support the cause of Palestine, but actually when there was time to realise the Palestinian state, Arab League along with the Western powers backed out. With the recent development, we further see the waning away of the smoke screen of championing the Palestinian cause which the Arab states used.
Apart from the immediate cause of the revolt (the land rights issues surrounding the Haram-e-Sharif area), we have to keep in mind why it has to be this way. Israeli politics comes into play here. Its such an electorally and politically divided country that no party ever commands a complete majority. Likud party of Netanyahu is barely holding it together right now in a complicated coalition. As a result a lot of vote bank politics and coalition politics comes into play. Now, Netanyahu to resolve this problem, has begun openly courting the far right extremists in Israel (which by the way are in minority, though increasing). Pandering to the orthodox right involves costs. They want complete exclusion of the Palestinians from East Jerusalem which Israel has come to occupy. This is why we keep reading about the forced Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas of Jerusalem. This also explains why in 2018, Israel passed the Basic Law, declaring itself as Jewish nation state. Contrary to popular belief Israel was not formed as Jewish nation. It continues to have substantial Arab population (excluding the Palestinians). It would be also be a mistake here to generalize the entire Israeli population as ethno-nationalist, the well off cities, especially Tel Aviv, do not identify with such goals at all.
Coming to Hamas, its origin is equally troublesome. Hamas which originally formed as a sister group of Egypt based terrorist organisation Muslim Brotherhood, was actually propelled to power by support of Mossad (Israel's intel). And yes though its dubbed a terrorist organization, which practically it is, it is also a democratically elected govt. Now why would Israel support Hamas? Well, at that time the Palestinian cause was led by PLO. PLO was a secular organization, which relied on largely peaceful means of negotiation. Israel made a cold politically calculated call, and it supported the Islamic fundamentalists as a way to divide support for the PLO and to delegitimize and discredit the the Palestinian Liberation Movement in general (by painting them as extremists). That short sighted political move is now costing Israel big time, now that Hamas is a full blown militant group.
So, is Israel to be blamed for the mess that its in? Yes and no. This can be seen as a parallel to US and Taliban in Afghanistan. US supported the Mujahedeens in Afghan for it was way to get rid of the Communist control of Afghan under the Soviet, this was in the backdrop of Cold War. They supplied weapons, trained them to fight the Soviets. What followed that was the Taliban grew out of control, and eventually led to 9/11. Its kind of a similar case here. To blame US for the formation of Taliban is true, but to consider the whole 9/11 as an inside affair is a conspiracy theory. Similar is the case with Israel, this protracted asymmetric warfare will continue to stretch as long as it serves a political purpose, be it for the Palestinians, or Israel.
This morning, I came across a comment on Reddit, where some guy quoted his political science teacher on this conflict. He said (paraphrased): "If you read up on this issue for an hour, you'll be convinced the Israeli's are right. If you read for 10 hours, you'll be convinced the Palestinians are right. And if you read anymore, you won't be sure about who is right." This is the best way to put how deeply complex this issue is. If its painted as a yes or no, or simple religion against religion answer then, most often than not, we have chosen which side to defend (not saying that it is bad).
Thank you for writing such a good summary. :)
The religious conflict and/or political conflict dichotomy is very complex to say the least. It obviously serves some interests of both sides to paint it as a religious conflict.
What do you guys think about the fact that in the West, especially in the US, any attempt by a public figure to take a pro-Palestine stand or criticize the Israeli government (political) is immediately painted as anti-Semitic (religious)?
Now obviously if it were in in Germany, for example, the matter is justifiably sensitive and such a conclusion might even be fair - given the rise of neo Nazis, it is understandable for the Jewish community to be wary.
But otherwise in most cases, it looks like a political opinion is deliberately forced into religious garb, because anti-Semitism is an allegation that can scare anyone into dropping the stance. Often the outrage is louder from the Jewish diaspora than it is from Israel itself. So it looks like the threat of branding as an anti-Semite is being utilized effectively to serve the political purpose of suppressing support for Palestine.
Does anyone have a different view on this?
In India, any critique of illiberalism practiced by the Hindu Right or its foot soldiers is immediately labelled as Hindu-phobia. In US & Israel, the analogous term is anti-Semitism. What the Right in both the country is doing is this: they are weaponizing the past tragedies (real tragedy in case of Jews & perceived tragedy in case of Hindus as the hindutvavadis consider the imposition of a secular state in a majority Hindu country a tragedy). And they are shielding their very conservative, illiberal politics (Zionism & Hindutva) from any criticism under the moral capital they think they are earned due to those past tragedies they have gone through. I don't know if I am making sense.
I agree fully. It is so easy to make people think of themselves as victims. It's even scarier when the history backing it is "alternate".
Villanelle,nerdfighterThank you for writing such a good summary. :)
The religious conflict and/or political conflict dichotomy is very complex to say the least. It obviously serves some interests of both sides to paint it as a religious conflict.
What do you guys think about the fact that in the West, especially in the US, any attempt by a public figure to take a pro-Palestine stand or criticize the Israeli government (political) is immediately painted as anti-Semitic (religious)?
Now obviously if it were in in Germany, for example, the matter is justifiably sensitive and such a conclusion might even be fair - given the rise of neo Nazis, it is understandable for the Jewish community to be wary.
But otherwise in most cases, it looks like a political opinion is deliberately forced into religious garb, because anti-Semitism is an allegation that can scare anyone into dropping the stance. Often the outrage is louder from the Jewish diaspora than it is from Israel itself. So it looks like the threat of branding as an anti-Semite is being utilized effectively to serve the political purpose of suppressing support for Palestine.
Does anyone have a different view on this?
I believe USA does not see through the “lens of religion”, but “lenses of interests”.
Villanelle,whatonlyRegarding American thing you might like to read Mearsheimer's Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.He also underlines how often pertinent criticisms are thwarted imputing them to be arising out of antisemitism.Narratives matter and the dominance of pro Israeli perceptions/sentiments in US preclude major politicians there to take the defiant path.Truman once said that arabs are not going to vote here and was advised against the Israeli state by his sec of state.Additionally , the trend of shutting down political criticism by emphasizing religious fault lines runs both the ways . For instance the issue surrounding Islamophobia
I love this line of Truman “Arabs are not going to vote here” :D
nerdfighter,
Thank you for writing such a good summary. :)
The religious conflict and/or political conflict dichotomy is very complex to say the least. It obviously serves some interests of both sides to paint it as a religious conflict.
What do you guys think about the fact that in the West, especially in the US, any attempt by a public figure to take a pro-Palestine stand or criticize the Israeli government (political) is immediately painted as anti-Semitic (religious)?
Now obviously if it were in in Germany, for example, the matter is justifiably sensitive and such a conclusion might even be fair - given the rise of neo Nazis, it is understandable for the Jewish community to be wary.
But otherwise in most cases, it looks like a political opinion is deliberately forced into religious garb, because anti-Semitism is an allegation that can scare anyone into dropping the stance. Often the outrage is louder from the Jewish diaspora than it is from Israel itself. So it looks like the threat of branding as an anti-Semite is being utilized effectively to serve the political purpose of suppressing support for Palestine.
Does anyone have a different view on this?
Yes. Israel is deliberately blurring the lines b/w anti Semitism (hatred of Jews) as anti Zionism (not supporting Jewish nation state) to brush off valid criticism.
This obviously does not mean that anti Semitism no longer continues to plague the world. I have also felt sometimes that the Jewish diaspore, especially in US is increasingly vocal on this than the state itself. I think one reason why Israelis themselves are less louder on this is again, the fact that Netanyahu and his policies around Palestine do not enjoy popular support among most young Israelis. The society is very polarised and the young/ liberal populace despise their govt and their own orthodox in equal measure.
In the US, anything involving Israel is very controversial. The state itself, be it democrat led or republican, has always been a big Israeli sponser. They continue to fund it loads. Not just the US govt, but big religious endowments from the rich Jewish diaspore is used to fund the livelihood of orthodox in the Old City. I watched this documentary by Duetsche Welle, the German state broadcaster highlighting this same issue. You have these ultra Orthodox Jews with literally 8-9 kids with no means whatsoever to support their family being handed aid to, or being supported to settle in traditionally Palestine areas.
The Democratic Party is divided on Israel. The old guys continue to support the traditional US stance on the issue, while the new progressives call for fixing Israeli accountability. But I don’t see how this is going to change things, as their hands are tied. The Jewish lobby in US is immensely powerful. The Jews have historically been very very entrepreneurial and innovative and they’ve made it big since arriving in America. There was this joke I read which said how Jews who predicted bad stuff happening, and fled the country back when the Third Reich was coming to power in Germany were dubbed as pessimists. Now the same have a mansion and pool in Cali. Anyway, coming back to the topic. Bottom line is this pro-Israel lobby is to big to ignore for the US. Also, standard vote bank politics happens here too. In light of the recent events, former democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang also called for support to Israel. Now, Yang is the last person you would think to support Zionism or anything of that sorts, but then he comes from NYC - where from what I read Jews constitute a big chunk of the population. Just getting Asian vote, due to his identity and Jewish vote, due to his stance, he has around 1/3rd votebank sorted.
There’s also this other angle with Evangelical Christians in America (concentrated in the Tenesee, Alabama outback area). They are deeply religious have always been supportive of Israel’s statehood. They supported Trump’s Jerusalem policy mainly due to all the biblical reasonings around that issue. Just to put into context how important they are as group, you have to know that they constitute to the biggest religious group in America, even surpassing the Catholics and the Protestants.
@Villanelle that’s a very detailed and intelligent explanation. Thank you for writing it :)
Since I’ve really come to admire how articulate and knowledgeable you are, please accept this humble tribute (although I’m sure you’d do a much better job yourself :p)
@nerdfighter @whatonly Agree to the points you have made. Have been observing the comments from both the sides these days and one can find that most of the opinions are extreme to an extent that middle path is hard to achieve. These complex issues that date back to centuries cannot be resolved by a binary thinking.For example: what@nerdfighter suggested what Hindus face is only a perceived tragedy doesnt really help in achieving a solution. Its definitely true some may exaggerate and create alternate history, but neglecting that they actually faced a problem doesnt solve it but only creates further resentment among them and try to exagerrate further to actually justify their actions. This is not just limited to this, you can find this same set of arguments from Jews as well as from Palestine. Both Israel and Palestine claim they are victims(not questioning the merits here) and assert that they have suffered more than the other.So I think if they acknowledged that the other side did suffer we can really expect to reach a solution that works for both sides. Its really hard to see either Israel and Palestine not being a victim. Claims from both the sides are equally valid. Brushing aside this and trying to exaggerate works well for the vested interests who stand to benefit from this. Hopefully both of them come to senses, appreciate each other concerns and works towards mutually acceptable solutions.
I agree. Concerns, perceived or real must not be brushed aside, but addressed if there’s to be any progress. The only problem is when instead of seeking a solution to a issue, either side chooses to capitalise on that for other xyz gains.
@nerdfighter @whatonly Agree to the points you have made. Have been observing the comments from both the sides these days and one can find that most of the opinions are extreme to an extent that middle path is hard to achieve. These complex issues that date back to centuries cannot be resolved by a binary thinking.For example: what@nerdfighter suggested what Hindus face is only a perceived tragedy doesnt really help in achieving a solution. Its definitely true some may exaggerate and create alternate history, but neglecting that they actually faced a problem doesnt solve it but only creates further resentment among them and try to exagerrate further to actually justify their actions. This is not just limited to this, you can find this same set of arguments from Jews as well as from Palestine. Both Israel and Palestine claim they are victims(not questioning the merits here) and assert that they have suffered more than the other.So I think if they acknowledged that the other side did suffer we can really expect to reach a solution that works for both sides. Its really hard to see either Israel and Palestine not being a victim. Claims from both the sides are equally valid. Brushing aside this and trying to exaggerate works well for the vested interests who stand to benefit from this. Hopefully both of them come to senses, appreciate each other concerns and works towards mutually acceptable solutions.
Agreed. Even beyond the real issues that we must acknowledge, there’s still little utility in debating the perceived. Especially in a post-truth world, the perceived-real distinction even stops practically mattering at some point and the only way to a solution is to compromise and find middle ground. Since there are often ulterior agendas of seeking power anyway, there are often real possibilities of satisfying them by some compromise as well. Realpolitik at its finest.
Arsene,nerdfighter@Villanelle that’s a very detailed and intelligent explanation. Thank you for writing it :)
Since I’ve really come to admire how articulate and knowledgeable you are, please accept this humble tribute (although I’m sure you’d do a much better job yourself :p)
Hahahaha. Oh man :D this is truly touching. Also, that admiration is 100% mutual. I mean you are a living Leslie Knope, what more inspiration can I need as an aspiring civil servant. :D
I low-key feel as appreciated as Ann Perkins probably feels when Leslie hits her with those wacky compliments. Thank you ❤️
Not to forget, I see a potential meemer in you.
Thank you for writing such a good summary. :)
The religious conflict and/or political conflict dichotomy is very complex to say the least. It obviously serves some interests of both sides to paint it as a religious conflict.
What do you guys think about the fact that in the West, especially in the US, any attempt by a public figure to take a pro-Palestine stand or criticize the Israeli government (political) is immediately painted as anti-Semitic (religious)?
Now obviously if it were in in Germany, for example, the matter is justifiably sensitive and such a conclusion might even be fair - given the rise of neo Nazis, it is understandable for the Jewish community to be wary.
But otherwise in most cases, it looks like a political opinion is deliberately forced into religious garb, because anti-Semitism is an allegation that can scare anyone into dropping the stance. Often the outrage is louder from the Jewish diaspora than it is from Israel itself. So it looks like the threat of branding as an anti-Semite is being utilized effectively to serve the political purpose of suppressing support for Palestine.
Does anyone have a different view on this?
Three four things .
No matter how deep it be a political issue , religious contestation is prevalent and determine perceptions and positions across the world. So a political solution solely is bound to fail. All those abraham accords won't materialize.
Secondly majority of Israelis are indeed ethonationalists. However the zeal of zionism may not be as strong as earlier in many of them. But even those would not accept any loss of percieved gain of territory in case of any negotiated settlement.
Teesri baat regarding Hamas, role of israel and the mess it finds it now, the position is bit more nuanced than that in case of US and Taliban.
Moreover there also exists a point of view- dont know how objective- that many a times terms of modus Vivendi by israel were blithely rejected by the other side even though it could have brought peace majorly because religious zeal was presented as a matter of political strength.
Lastly , with the extant paranoia no peace proposal can find total acceptability.
Any negotiated settlement can take place only when Israel remains militarily superior, US seriously pressurises Israel and stops pandering it- which anyways is prudent as the critiques of its F policy say and Arab states are collectively forthcoming to compromise.
If Israel weakens militarily, things will get more complicated.
PS : My knowledge and information regarding this issue is very very scant.
Agrim maafi mangte hue..
Thank you for writing such a good summary. :)
The religious conflict and/or political conflict dichotomy is very complex to say the least. It obviously serves some interests of both sides to paint it as a religious conflict.
What do you guys think about the fact that in the West, especially in the US, any attempt by a public figure to take a pro-Palestine stand or criticize the Israeli government (political) is immediately painted as anti-Semitic (religious)?
Now obviously if it were in in Germany, for example, the matter is justifiably sensitive and such a conclusion might even be fair - given the rise of neo Nazis, it is understandable for the Jewish community to be wary.
But otherwise in most cases, it looks like a political opinion is deliberately forced into religious garb, because anti-Semitism is an allegation that can scare anyone into dropping the stance. Often the outrage is louder from the Jewish diaspora than it is from Israel itself. So it looks like the threat of branding as an anti-Semite is being utilized effectively to serve the political purpose of suppressing support for Palestine.
Does anyone have a different view on this?
Three four things .
No matter how deep it be a political issue , religious contestation is prevalent and determine perceptions and positions across the world. So a political solution solely is bound to fail. All those abraham accords won't materialize.
Secondly majority of Israelis are indeed ethonationalists. However the zeal of zionism may not be as strong as earlier in many of them. But even those would not accept any loss of percieved gain of territory in case of any negotiated settlement.
Teesri baat regarding Hamas, role of israel and the mess it finds it now, the position is bit more nuanced than that in case of US and Taliban.
Moreover there also exists a point of view- dont know how objective- that many a times terms of modus Vivendi by israel were blithely rejected by the other side even though it could have brought peace majorly because religious zeal was presented as a matter of political strength.
Lastly , with the extant paranoia no peace proposal can find total acceptability.
Any negotiated settlement can take place only when Israel remains militarily superior, US seriously pressurises Israel and stops pandering it- which anyways is prudent as the critiques of its F policy say and Arab states are collectively forthcoming to compromise.
If Israel weakens militarily, things will get more complicated.
PS : My knowledge and information regarding this issue is very very scant unlike many of you , certainly @Villanelle whose response means he has read considerably.
Agrim maafi mangte hue..
Yar maine koi PhD thodi kar rakhi hai ispe. Every opinion here is just as important. Please don’t say all this, it’s frankly a little embarrassing. Chill :)
Buddhijeevi Parsad,thesleepyhead
Write your comment…
