Display realism in ties with Palestine The Statesman 02 Jan 18
The recent international debate over Trump announcing the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the shifting of his embassy there, resounded in the UN. The UN security council voted 14:1 on the issue, with the US being compelled to use its veto for the first time in years. There was also a vote in the General Assembly, where a total of 128 nations voted against the US decision, 9 supporting and 35 abstaining, India being one of those that voted against. The General Assembly vote was conducted under direct US threats, issued both by Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative to the UN and President Trump.
The Indian vote was based on four factors. Firstly, despite requests from various political parties and members of the international community, which understood India’s growing proximity to both, the US and Israel, India maintained a studied silence on the US announcement. Secondly, India did not participate in the discussion in the UN, preferring to maintain its silence once again. These two steps indicated India’s genuine stand. Thirdly, to display its historical support to the Palestinian cause, it voted against the US and Israel.
Finally, were the threats issued by the US. Had India backed down and voted for the US and Israel or even abstained, the government would have come under intense criticism at home. It would have been accused of being a US lackey, which it neither is nor would ever be. Though the vote also impacted Israel, a close partner in economic and military fields, however, India had limited options. With the parliament session commencing, the government would have had to battle to remove the stigma of acting under US pressure. Possibly Nikki Haley and Trump’s threats were the final deciding factors. Thus, the final vote was more to avoid domestic criticism, than support Palestine openly, however, the fact was that it did support them and historically have always had.
India would have discussed its stand with Israel, if not the US. This was because of its growing relationship with Israel. At the same time, it ignored calls for speaking against or criticizing the US and Israel, as it was aware that Palestine has never supported India on the Kashmir issue. It has always towed the line of Pakistan and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). Their support may be solely in name however, it has always been expected on a reciprocal basis.
Recent press reports of the Palestinian ambassador to Pakistan sharing the dais with Hafiz Saeed, has raised eyebrows in India. There has been widespread criticism of this action and demands are increasing for the government to reverse its stand and stop supporting Palestine. Hafiz Saeed is the individual, whom India considers as being responsible for Mumbai and many other terror operations in India. Thus, the Palestinian ambassador being on the same platform is an indicator of the disrespect and ingratitude which Palestine displayed towards India.
The incident occurred just prior to the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister to India and post the announcement of Modi’s visit to Palestine in the coming months. Despite its proximity to Israel, India has been one of the few vibrant supporters of the Palestine cause. President Mukherjee visited Palestine in Oct 2016, followed by the Sushma Swaraj. Mukherjee’s visit bears special significance, as the Modi government declared its intention to continue to support their cause. Mukherjee visited Israel and Palestine simultaneously, indicating India’s commitment for peace in the region. This was followed by the visit of the President of Palestine to India last year. Mukherjee during his visit gifted 30 computers to a training centre.
Israel, on the other hand, has been a nation which has always stood by India. It has supported Indian stand on Kashmir, condemned Pak for supporting terror groups, sold India weapons with latest technology, provided intelligence on terror groups and shared its expertise in agriculture. Despite India maintaining minimum relations with Israel in the past, it has never let India down. Manekshaw, the COAS during the 1971 war, had even stated that India fought the war with Israeli manufactured ammunition for the 130 mm Guns, which Russia had failed to provide. Thus, considering realism in international relations, India should logically be seen moving closer towards Israel than Palestine.
The open presence of the Palestinian ambassador alongside Hafiz Saeed should be taken as an insult. It may have been condemned by Palestine and its Ambassador withdrawn, however it does indicate their mindset. It is an indicator that as a nation, they would align with groups operating against India, rather than supporting Indian interests. It is possible that this action was done to assuage India, so that the scheduled visit of Modi is not cancelled. They, like many others whom India has always stood by, have begun taking India for granted, which in international relations, impacts its prestige.
It therefore becomes incumbent for India to change its international relations towards realism, rather than on historical baggage and sentimental values. Realistically, peace in West Asia would only come about when the Palestinians accept the reality of the existence of the state of Israel. India can be a via-media in discussions.
India as an international powerhouse has a voice respected across the globe. It provides economic and diplomatic support to Palestine. It should therefore make its position clear that repeating such actions or acting against Indian interests would invite Indian counter measures, which would harm the support and assistance it now receives. While Palestine may have withdrawn its ambassador to Pakistan, it needs to formally apologize to India for this misdemeanour.
India has the power to force such change in nations whom it has supported and continues to support. Hesitation to support Indian stand should result in announcing a drastic shift in our foreign policy. India is a rising global power and unless it commences acting like one, it’s decency and magnanimity would always be misconstrued.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army