It is time to shut out those who see only evil in Israel and refuse to acknowledge its contributions towards India. Now that a grand beginning has been made with Prime Minister Modi’s historic visit to Israel, the two countries must move towards deeper cooperation in both traditional and new sectors, says RAJESH SINGH
The seculars (read anti-Israeli elements, for the present context) have been yelping ever since it became known that Narendra Modi would be visiting Israel. Now that he has completed the historic trip, the lament has become shriller — to lose intensity no doubt as the days pass and new issues are found for them to latch on to. A Prime Minister of India has actually visited Israel, for the first time — terrible! He has betrayed the cause of the Palestinians — shame! He has turned India’s foreign policy of decades on West Asia on its head — disgraceful! He has ignored the sensitivities of Indian Muslims in the process — communal! What are we to make of the outburstIJ That the wrath of the Muslim world combined and that of Indian Muslim community is to soon engulf the Indian nationIJ That the Islamic global fraternity, especially the Arabs and the Iranians (though at loggerheads with each other), will sever links with New DelhiIJ That the import of oil will dry outIJ That India-Islamic nations’ growing cooperation, especially in the area of anti-terrorism, will collapseIJ That the Palestinians are going to turn their back on IndiaIJ
None of these catastrophes is obviously going to happen. The Cassandras know it. And so, they have nuanced their opposition by citing something that appeals to the intellectual mind of a particular kind and binds the critics to a common thinking: Ideology. And so, how can India, which has always stood for the oppressed (Palestinians) and against the oppressors (Israelis), treat Israel with such respect that its Prime Minister visits that nationIJ Further so, ever since Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister, he has been on an overdrive to change the ‘Idea of India’ to suit the saffron agenda — and his Israel trip fits into that scheme of things. And thus, he has indulged in disgraceful capitulation, no doubt under the influence of his new friends in the West, not to mention the Jewish community.
Many developments escape their attention, not because they have been forgotten but because their remembrance is inconvenient to their template. First, the head of the Indian state, President Pranab Mukherjee, visited Israel in October 2015. The skies didn’t fall; heavens didn’t collapse. Second, several important functionaries of the Union Government have gone on official trips there, and there hasn’t been any backlash from the usual suspects. Third, India established diplomatic relations with the state of Israel way back in 1992 — this is the silver jubilee year of their formal association — and has been none the poorer for it. Fourth, New Delhi recognised Israel in 1950, barely two years after that country came into being, and it has not in the least worsened its cooperation or relations with either the Palestinians or the Islamic world. And fifth, quite a few Muslim countries, historically opposed to Israel, have struck a level of understanding with Israel — Egypt, Jordan and Syria are random examples. They had actually waged wars on the Jewish nation. It’s true that several Muslim countries still have issues and they do not allow flights to or from Israel to enter their air space (this is the reason why Air India One, flying the Prime Minister to Israel, had to take a longer route to skirt the air spaces of such nations), but their protests have become more symbolic than real in the sense that they have reconciled in terms of realpolitik to the existence of Israel. They may not recognise it but they cannot wish it away.
There is more. The Camp David Accords, a result of intense US mediation with Jimmy Carter as President, had been signed in September 1978 between (then) sworn enemies, Israel and Egypt. In 1993, came a set of agreements under what came to be called the Oslo Accords, inked by the Palestine liberation Organisation (PlO) and Israel — again under American mediation. These deals created the Palestinian Authority tasked with limited self-governance in parts of West Bank and Gaza, and recognised the PlO as Israel’s partner in negotiations on the issue. The Oslo Accords got the momentum from the Camp David agreements. Admittedly, neither of the accords did much to end the dispute, which festers to this date, but they signalled the realisation that Israel cannot be wished away by closing one’s eyes and that those who have a problem with it, will have to deal with it in a mature fashion.
Wars had been waged before by Israel’s enemies, at times using stealth — as during the Yom Kippur season in October 1973 — but they ended in Israel’s favour. Even the 1967 Six-Day War, in which Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria contributed troops to the anti-Israel alliance, saw Israel emerge in better light. Actually, ‘better light’ would be an understatement — at the end of the conflict, Israel ended up with enemy territory: From West Bank to Golan Heights to Sinai to Gaza. After fewer than half a dozen such direct wars, the Muslim world realised the futility of taking on a determined though small nation through military might. Proxy fights (using the Hamas, the Hezbollah, radical factions of the PlO etc) took the conventional conflict’s place. Areas governed by the Palestinian Authority, and lebanon, became the launch pads for terrorism inside Israel. But negotiations too had begun to resolve the dispute. Today, Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties in place with Israel.
The Indian response throughout the tumult was along expected lines — as would be expected from foggy-eyed diplomats and their equally disoriented political masters. New Delhi went out of its way to present an apologetic face, so to say, for having recognised Israel in 1950. Because, recognition means not just acceptance of existence — which India’s Arab and Persian friends had stoutly denied and rejected on Israel — but also a commitment of sorts to interact with that recognised nation. How could New Delhi of the Nehru and the Indira Gandhi eras bring itself to doing soIJ Nehru almost always disliked everything that the US liked in international diplomacy (and the US liked Israel with a capital l), and Indira Gandhi was left charmed by one-time-terrorist-later-statesman Yasser Arafat of the PlO to care much for the Israelis. Besides, her hostility to the US of the Nixon period (for good reasons, though) made it near impossible for her to engage with Israel. But the proximity to the Islamic world here did nothing to win for New Delhi any of its support on issues such as the Kashmir dispute. And so, let alone Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, even the Shah’s Iran did not stand by India during the 1971 war. Nor did, of course, those nations who are members of the Organisation of Islamic Conference.
Throughout these decades, there was not one step — not one — Israel took which harmed or threatened to harm India’s interests. In fact, there had been media reports that Israel had silently extended support to India during the 1971 war, which led to the creation of Bangladesh and a crushing military defeat of Pakistan. A recent book by respected academic and author Srinath Raghavan, reveals that Indira Gandhi had sought — and received — assistance from Tel Aviv as she prepared to launch the war against Pakistan. Raghavan based his material from papers he accessed at the Nehru Memorial Museum and library, to demonstrate that Israeli arms were requested for and received by India. Then Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir immediately swung into action and despite Israel being short of arms at that point, she directed that no effort must be spared to meet India’s needs. The pro-Palestine seculars howling today (and they include those from the Congress) must not forget this episode.
If memory fails some people because 1971 appears to be far off, such ones would perhaps more readily recall the 1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, when Israel helped India with mortar and ammunition and surveillance equipment and laser-guided missiles. Of course, like in the 1971 case, the Israeli help was kept much under wraps. It is here that the change is visible now. A relationship which was in the closet is now out because of the Modi regime’s ‘daring’ to own it. It’s neither amorous nor illegal.
The hypocrisy of the critics is amazing. They have not had any problems with the deepening trade and other ties between the two nations, and yet they have a problem with the Prime Minister of India paying a visit to a country that has stood by India in times of need. An Indian Prime Minister ought to have visited Israel years ago. Indira Gandhi should have, after the 1971 help; Vajpayee should have after the 1999 assistance. Even otherwise, an Indian Prime Minister ought to have gone to Tel Aviv. But while Indira Gandhi was under the Muslim bloc’s spell as well as under her domestic constituent’s, Vajpayee was hobbled by a coalition whose partners would have frowned at the gesture. Modi has no such compulsion and has made full use of the political mandate he has received from the people.
It cannot be denied that India’s trade ties with Israel have grown considerably over the last 25 years. Bilateral trade in 1992 was around $200 million; it now stands at over four billion dollars. This is reflected in a variety of areas, ranging from defence to irrigation to diamonds to information technology to telecommunications to space exploration to textiles to internal security, and more.
And did Prime Minister Modi sell the Palestinians down the river during his visit to IsraelIJ Only a befuddled and hyper-imaginative mind would say so. In fact, even before his departure, the Government of India made it known that the country’s Palestine policy stood intact and that it believed in the peaceful coexistence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. At the same time, it made it clear that the hyphenation of Israel and Palestine in the country’s foreign policy paradigm had effectively ended. The approach to one would not necessarily be dictated by the approach to the other. Every move that New Delhi makes would be in keeping with national interests and not pander to hazy ideological positions.
So, what did Modi doIJ He pushed hard to promote Make in India, bring in a farming revolution in India with technology that would boost irrigation potential, and discussed joint measures to counter terrorism, besides conversing on other subjects of mutual interest. Irrigation technology is, particularly, something that India, which faces water woes for farming needs nearly every year — good monsoon or not — would be interested in. Apparently, the Israeli scientists have invented and placed sensors on crops that collect data from these crops regarding water requirements etc and then translate them into ‘irrigation commands’. The other area of special interest, of course, has been that of countering terrorism. Israel has dealt with this threat for as long as it came into being — and quite successfully. Regardless of world criticism at times, it has not compromised on its strategy and has always hit hard where it hurts. India could learn from such an unapologetic stance. Israel also does not mince words, and unlike other nations friendly to India, it is upfront in naming Pakistan as a sponsor of terror within India. Mark Sofer, a senior Israeli official who played a key role in organising Prime Minister Modi’s visit, said, “Israel has supported India both in its general battle against terrorism, as well as the groups operating out of Pakistan. Unlike many countries, we have not hesitated to openly support India on this. We find no difference between the Hamas and the leT.” Nor should New Delhi differentiate between the two extremist outfits.
It’s time to shut out those who see only evil in Israel and refuse to acknowledge its contributions towards India. It’s no longer an either/or situation for India vis-a-vis Palestine / Israel. It never ought to have been. Now that a grand beginning has been made with Prime Minister Modi’s historic visit — recall the tremendous warmth with which he was received at the Ben Gurion Airport, and the accompanying pomp as well, by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on July 4, and multiple hugs at the airport itself and each leader calling the other “my friend” and “my dear friend”, leaving the media wonderstruck — let’s hope it will be built upon through even deeper cooperation in both traditional and newer sectors between the two friends. As for the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Palestine — he will go, he will… Maybe soon, perhaps later, but not with the intention of ‘balancing it out’. Those days of amateurish diplomacy are gone.