THE most remarkable feature of Ariel Sharon’s official visit to India, the first ever by an Israeli prime minister, was that it was short on rhetoric and long on specifics. It was one of those rare top-level visits when appearance tries to conceal substance and both sides go to great lengths to play down the significance of their relationship.

The visit was planned to coincide with the second anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks which both New Delhi and Tel Aviv have fully exploited to rope in Washington. Also, it came at a critical juncture when September 11 tragedy, the Afghanistan war and the occupation of Iraq had changed the entire strategic calculus in the Middle East and South Asia. In the emerging scenario, Israel has cropped up as a key player.

The flourishing Indo-Israeli co-operation is a classic example of how pragmatism and national interests should triumph over all other considerations in the formulation of a country’s foreign policy. For over forty years New Delhi and Tel Aviv were kept apart by the legacy of Nehru’s era.

In the pre-Independence period, Indian National Congress opposed the creation of ‘Jewish National Home’; India did not subscribe to the UN Special Committee’s plan recommending partition of Palestine; and India, like Pakistan, voted against the admission of Israel into the United Nations in May 1949.

New Delhi accorded formal recognition to Israel in 1950 but did not establish diplomatic relations till 1992 when prime minister Narasimha Rao in a bold move, overruling objections by sections within the government and the ruling Congress Party normalized relations with Israel.

Realizing the folly of antagonizing Israel, New Delhi had established secret contacts with Tel Aviv even before establishing diplomatic relations. According to P.R. Kumaraswamy (India and Israel: Evolving Strategic Partnership, Security and Policy Studies) prolonged cooperation between India’s RAW and its Israeli counterpart Mossad existed during the premiership of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. India’s secret contacts with Israel have also been detailed in By way of Deception written by a former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky. India sent a secret mission to Israel in 1984 comprising its top nuclear scientists to exchange vital information on nuclear matters.

The thrust areas of Indo-Israeli cooperation are three: defence, intelligence and strategic cooperation. Though India had sought Israeli help sporadically (Tel Aviv supplied devastating 160mm mortars and ammunition during the 1971 war and unmanned aerial vehicles and photographs from its military satellite during the Kargil war), defence cooperation on a firm basis ensued when vice-chief of army staff Lt. Gen Vijay Oberoi visited Israel in August 2001.

He showed keen interest in four broad areas: avionics; Arrow Antiballistic Missile Defence System (AAMDS); Green Pine Radar System (GPRS) and Phalcon Airborne Early-Warning and Control System (PAWCS). The Israelis are even better than the Russians in upgrading Russian-built equipment. The expanding defence cooperation may cover upgrading of T-72 tanks and Russian-built helicopters and aircraft. Perhaps the secret flight and landing of an Indian MiG-29 in 1997 in Israel had something to do with putting high tech western avionics in it. Also India’s homeboy UAV Nishant, has reportedly some Israeli technology.

If the reported move to supply Orion, an anti-submarine and maritime patrol aircraft to India goes through, it would underline increasing US openness towards direct arms sales to India. India has now overtaken Turkey as the largest single destination for Israeli defence exports. Last year India signed defence contracts with Israel worth two billion dollars. With cost of Russian spare-parts escalating 300-500 per cent, Israel will soon overtake Russia as India’s biggest arms supplier. India last year spent 12.9 billion dollars on defence, placing it eleventh out of the world’s leading 15 military spenders.

Cooperation in the field of intelligence is equally pervasive. Israel’s Mossad and AMAN (Israeli army’s intelligence agency) are providing invaluable inputs to India.

Israel produces high-tech sensitive gadgetry for intelligence purposes which India can now obtain for its purposes. India can also benefit from Israel’s border management and counter-terrorism techniques. When home minister L. K. Advani visited Israel in mid-2000, he was accompanied by heads of India’s intelligence agencies — RAW, IB and central police organizations fighting terrorism.

Indo-Israeli strategic cooperation is even more ominous from Pakistan’s point of view. During external affairs minister Jaswant Singh’s visit in 2000, the two governments agreed to establish a joint commission at ministerial level for cooperation in combating terrorism. In addition to the foreign ministers’ consultation process, strategic discussions are held between New Delhi and Tel Aviv every six months.

According to BBC’s South Asian analyst Louise Tillin, “a strategic axis between the US, Israel and India has been gaining ground. It is an idea that appears to have advocates, privately at least, within the Bush administration.” Mr. Richard Foster, Asian Security fellow at the Centre for Security Policy in Washington says that supporters of Israel within the administration can be assumed to view growing Indo-Israel ties positively. “The three countries”, he argues “share a high enduring interest in determining the roots and causes of terrorism”.

India’s National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra floated the idea of triad when he addressed the American Jewish Congress in May 2003. He made the following important observations:

* India-US-Israel have some fundamental similarities.

* Strong US-India and India-Israel relations have a natural logic.

* The three countries have to join to face the same ugly face of modern day terrorism.

* Such an alliance would have the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions in extreme cases of terrorist provocation.

Israeli deputy prime minister Yosef Lapid during the recent India visit, told reporters in New Delhi on September 10 that an “unwritten and abstract” axis with India and the United States has been created to combat international terrorism and make the world a more secure place for all. “There is American support for development of this unwritten axis”, Lapid disclosed.

The argument being advanced in favour of India-Israel-US axis is as follows: In the entire stretch from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, there exist only two functional democracies, Israel and India, committed to ‘liberal values’ that the US espouses. In this vast region, characterized by instability, religious bigotry, extremism, violence and hatred against the West, the only two “natural allies” that Washington has are Tel Aviv and New Delhi.

The temporizing strategic relationships that the US has with despotic or not-fully democratic regimes extending from Riyadh to Islamabad are short-term servers because none of these countries can become a “natural” ally of the United States. The advocates of triad therefore conclude that a strategic alliance between India and Israel, backed by the US would create a reliable and potent security force against fundamentalist terrorism.

The US has a veto on most Israeli military products as they are based on technology licensed in the United States. The Bush administration’s green light to the sale of Israel’s sophisticated PAWCS is a signal of US endorsement of the developing Indo-Israeli strategic relationship. Islamabad should not, therefore, be surprised if, after stability returns to Afghanistan and Al Qaeda threat fades away, Washington approves the sale of Israel’s anti-missile system.

Pakistan finds itself today in an unviable situation. The emerging scenario has put it on a sticky wicket. Islamabad must be wondering how the interests of the country have suffered over the years from the absence of a political culture that accords primacy to pragmatism and national interests rather than to hollow idealism and moral histrionics.

We must now start seeing the reality as it exists and not what we would like it to be. There appear to be only two viable options open to us. We can either hobble-jump on to the bandwagon of Indo-Israel-US strategic alliance or settle our differences with India and live at peace with our eastern neighbour. We should continue to have good relations with the United States but must be on our guard against the slippery nature of this relationship.

A GROUP of revered Jew leaders met me at India House in London when I was the high commissioner to express their gratitude for our tolerant society. They said India was the only country in the world where the Jews had never experienced any discrimination. It should not come as a surprise if Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who himself has a tainted record, repeated the same sentiments when he met the Indian leaders at New Delhi.

I wish I could say the same thing about Israel. I was impressed by the modest, ascetic society it was when I visited Tel Aviv in the early 60s. I sat with young boys and girls under the open sky to commend their hard work and their vision about peace. Those were the days when there was a loose talk in the Arab world to dump the Jews in the sea. In reply, Jews would then say: “We want to live peacefully with our neighbouring countries.”

The same Israel has travelled a long way. It has forcibly occupied bits of territory of neighbouring countries. The moderates have been pushed aside. The state has acquired a face, which is brutal and vindictive. True, terrorism or the fear of it has contributed a lot to what Israel has become today. But it does not realize that it has tried to solve political problems through the military.

Instead of pointing out this, the joint statement issued by New Delhi and Tel Aviv gives the impression of our going along with Israel. We have avoided the name of Palestine. It is like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. New Delhi has, indeed, changed its policy when Palestine is not mentioned in the joint statement and when the visiting Israeli delegation say that “we and they” are on the same side. What would our friends in the Arab world, particularly the Palestine, infer?

Sharon was the first Israeli prime minister to visit India. Although we recognized the country in 1950 we had no meaningful contacts with it till the mid-eighties. It was the BJP-led government which really befriended Tel Aviv and also entered into defence deals. Even Mossad, Israel’s top intelligence agency, is said to have developed ties with our agencies. The same BJP government invited Sharon. Did it mean that India was formalising a relationship which was suspect in the eyes of the Arab world? The BJP’s agenda is political. It wants to exploit for its parochial purpose the Islamic fundamentalism which, among other things, confronts Israel. This is a policy which is directly opposed to the sensitivities of the Arab nations.

The reason for Arab’s anger was that Israel was planted in their midst despite their opposition. Still they could have been mollified if an independent state of Palestine was founded. This is what we should have been trying. But our efforts went awry. Our stand on Palestine has been according to the complexion of the government of the day in Delhi. We seldom acted according to what the situation has demanded.

In the first 40 years after independence we went overboard in our tilt towards the Palestinians Now we have gone overboard in our tilt towards Israel. We have lost the art of staying equidistant. This has affected our stock in West Asia. There is suspicion that we want to get closer to America through Israel. Even the Palestinians doubt us.

In an interview, Palestinian foreign minister Sha’ath said n Delhi a few days ago: “First of all, I see no need to go to Israel to reach the United States. The United States is open to India. I do not think that you need that intermediary.” He alleged that we (Indians) were identifying ourselves with those who would like to dub all the Palestinian resistance as “terrorism.”

Earlier, while criticizing the visit of Sharon, President Yasser Arafat warned that this would further “fuel India-Pakistan tension.” It is an unfortunate observation coming from a person who should be doing everything to span the distance between the two countries it hurts. Why should Sharon’s visit be unwelcome to Pakistan when it is also toying with the idea of extending recognition to Israel?

Having good relations with Tel Aviv or doing business with it is not at the expense of Palestinians. The Indians support their aspirations to rule themselves. In fact, their struggle for independence reminds us of our struggle for independence. But ours was a non-violent movement, which knew of no bomb blasts and suicide squads in crowded market places or living quarters. I wonder sometimes whether a non-violent movement by the Palestinians would have had more impact on the Jews and the civil society in America or elsewhere. But then our leader was Mahatma Gandhi who wore hand-spun khaddar. The Palestinians have Yasser Arafat as their President who prides himself in wearing a khaki uniform.

What has damaged Israel’s image is the way in which it has expanded its territory beyond the borders which the UN had mandated while creating the state. Tel Aviv is seen using brutal force to spread itself in the name of survival. It is also apparent that Israel does not want to vacate the territories it has forcibly incorporated into Israel. Still more reprehensible is the lack of sensitivity on the part of Tel Aviv. It rolls out its tanks on the streets of Palestine at the slightest provocation. The worst type of actions is taken against Syria, Jordan or Egypt if Tel Aviv suspects that some people in their territory are terrorists. The governments are seldom consulted or warned.

What the Hamas or other militant organizations are doing is not our kind of politics. Gandhi said that if means were vitiated, ends are bound to be vitiated. Yet this does not mean that Israel should get away with what it is doing to the Palestinians. Arafat has been confined to his house for weeks. After all he is the president of Palestine.

Terrorism in which some Palestinian groups are indulging is no solution to the problem. The killings steel a nation’s determination, not slacken it. This is what is happening in India. Neither Lashkar-i-Taiba nor the Hizbul Mujahideen, nor their masters are realizing that they are only heightening the country’s resolve to crush them, whatever the cost. Still there is no doubt that the BJP-led government is giving all the credibility to Israel when it is not giving any honourable exit to the Arafat government. In fact, it is not even noticing its existence. New Delhi cannot be a party to that.

The ultimate test for Tel Aviv’s credentials will be whether it can live in peace with its neighbouring countries and reconcile itself to the independent status of Palestine. Sharon gave no such hope. New Delhi should have tried to take him out of that frame of mind. I believe that the words like ‘reconciliation and understanding’ were being discussed for use in the draft joint statement when the recent attack by suicide bombers took place.

America is talking about ‘friendship’ among the three, the US, Israel and India. But how can New Delhi support Tel Aviv in the excesses it is committing in a mood of vendetta? This is creating an atmosphere of conflict, disruption and retaliation in the region and even beyond.

The world powers are silent because America is openly and consistently on the side of Israel. Maybe, Washington should push its own road map which it announced some time back. However inadequate, there would be some beginning.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.

TEN years ago this day, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed, in the words of Bill Clinton, “the peace of the brave” that was supposed to lead to the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state and the establishment of a lasting peace in the Middle East. A decade later, a Palestinian state has not come into being, and nothing is further from the holy land than peace.

Since that glittering ceremony on the lawns of the White House on September 13, 1993, one of the major actors of the Palestinian drama is dead — Rabin, murdered by a Jewish fanatic. The other hero, Abu Ammar, is a prisoner, courtesy another Zionist criminal and mass murderer, Ariel Sharon.

With the exception of Shimon Peres, who followed Rabin as prime minister, all other three Israeli leaders have tried to excel each other in sabotaging the peace process.

The man who first began dragging his feet on the time-table for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories was Benjamin Netanyahu. He made it clear he did not think the peace process was in Israel’s interest.

His successor, Ehud Barak, won the election on a peace plank, promising to put the peace process back on the track. However, once in power, he followed Netanyahu, put every imaginable obstacle in the way of a faithful implementation of the peace process, and forced an obliging Clinton administration to virtually re-negotiate the peace treaty. There then followed a number of what turned out to be utterly useless summit conferences, brokered by Clinton, at Wye, Camp David, Cairo and Sharm El Sheikh. They served merely to complicate and obfuscate the real geopolitical and moral issue — that Israel must withdraw from the Palestinian territories it has been in illegal possession of since 1967.

“The Declaration of Principles”, signed in Washington on Sept 13, 1993, laid down the following time-table for peace:

October 13, 1993: The declaration becomes effective, with Israel beginning to transfer authority in the occupied territories to “authorized Palestinians.”

April 13, 1994: Israel completes withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Jericho (on the West Bank). This was to mark the beginning of a five-year period of Palestinian self-government leading to a final settlement.

July 13, 1994: An elected Palestinian Council comes into being, followed by the end of Israel’s military administration in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. April 13, 1996: The two sides begin negotiations for a final settlement.

April 13, 1999: Permanent settlement comes into force.

Today, more than four years after that date, Israel is in full control of the occupied territories, with Arafat a prisoner in a building that alone was left standing after the Israeli tank fire and missiles destroyed every other building in his Ramallah headquarters.

The peace process now stands abandoned, the neo-con America itself being party to this blatant, unilateral abrogation of a multilateral agreement which an American president himself had signed, with millions of TV viewers the world over watching.

The horizons over the land of the prophets darkened when Ariel Sharon visited the Islamic holy sites despite being told not to do so in September 2000 and touched off a new round of blood-letting.

In March next year, Sharon became prime minister and set about systematically demolishing the peace process figuratively as well as literally. He ordered a re-occupation of the Gaza and West Bank (which Donald Rumsfeld calls the “so-called occupied territories”) and began destroying Arafat’s headquarters by tank fire and missile attacks in a war of nerve on the one man who in his personality symbolizes the defiance of the Palestinian people.

His headquarters was destroyed but not Arafat’s spirit or the morale of his comrades. Millions of TV viewers saw Arafat standing defiantly at the window, rifle in hand, while Sharon’s tanks stood yards away.

Also to occur last year was another feat of butchery by Sharon — the massacre at Jenin. Israel denied the slaughter, but promptly refused entry to a UN team that wanted to establish the truth.

Since then, the holy land has witnessed nothing but targeted assassinations and suicide bombings in a spiral of violence that shows no signs of abating. Yet, for America, the issue is neither Israel’s occupation of someone else’s territory nor the freedom of the Palestinian people but the personality of Arafat.

The aim behind the obfuscation is to make the world forget and whitewash the injustices done to the Palestinian people since the Balfour Declaration (1917), when the Jews constituted six per cent of the population of Palestine; the appropriation of the Palestinian lands by white settlers under the British “mandate”; the expulsion of the Palestinian people from their ancestral land; their lives in squalor and poverty as refugees; the diversion of water from Arab villages to Jewish kibbutzim; the destruction of Arab-owned orchards and the felling of hundreds of thousands of olive and citrus trees; and the names associated with some of the 20th century’s most horrible massacres — Deir Yassin, Sabra-Chatilla and Qana.

The roadmap to peace, prepared by the Quartet (the US, Russia, the EU and the UN) and unveiled by President George Bush on April 30, is heavily tilted in Israel’s favour. Still, the Palestinian Authority accepted it; Israel did this belatedly with 14 reservations.

Meanwhile, Sharon has continued to violate the roadmap, which not only forbids the building of settlements but also calls for dismantling those set up since March 2001 when the Likud came to power. One major question here is: what chances are there of the successful implementation of the Bush roadmap? Frankly, zero. Israel has no intention of seeing an independent Palestinian state emerge for the simple reason that this will negate its “ideology.”

The Zionists consider entire Palestine as their property. Ben Gurion used to constantly look at a wall map of the Middle East in his office, and he would remark every now and then, “How small we are!” By force of arms, Israel has conquered entire Palestine, and it has no intention of quitting it. At the same time, it cannot annex the West Bank and Gaza (as it did the Golan Heights) because that would alter Israel’s demographic character. What suits Israel is neither outright annexation nor an independent Palestinian state, but two “native” cantons criss-crossed by Israeli highways cutting through Palestinian towns, villages and orchards and dotted with Jewish settlements.

In such “Bantustans” all that the natives will get by way of sovereignty will be “governments” whose functions will be confined to collecting garbage or, at best, running schools.

Israel has already sabotaged the peace process and will finally scuttle it (after putting the blame on Arafat) because the international geopolitical climate suits it eminently. The communist bloc has disappeared; Russia and China are in no mood to annoy America, and the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference are mere debating fora. In this world, only one power calls the shots, and that is America.

The leadership of America apparently takes orders from the Zionist lobby. You criticise Israel, and your next term in Congress or in the White House is as good as gone. Not only that: the media will discover you had committed embezzlements a decade ago, and there was a mistress it was time the world knew about. This is too heavy a price for any Congressman or a president to pay for the sake of Palestinians.

One must ask now: is there a people braver than the Palestinians? Abandoned by the world, including their Arab and Muslim “brothers”, they are fighting alone with their backs to the wall. They know the odds they are up against. They also know they are not fighting merely Israel — the Middle East’s strongest military power — but the United States, with all its might, including its most powerful weapon, the media.

It is a tragedy that the United States, which prides itself in upholding the values enshrined in its constitution and the ideals that led to the American revolution, has chosen to side not with truth and justice but with fraud, oppression, tyranny, apartheid and religious bigotry.

Will victory come to the Palestinians? Yes, sooner or later, yes. It may take time, but ultimately truth will triumph over falsehood. The crusaders took Al Quds in 1099, and it was liberated by Saladin 88 years later.

But the crusader state continued to last for another century. Israel is now 55 years old. This is too short a span of time for history.

One must not jump to conclusions about the fate of Israel on the basis of the current state of world politics. History has its own way of avenging itself. The question is not whether but when Palestine will be liberated; and when, not whether, the Arab-Islamic flag will fly over Al Quds again.

The writer covered the signing ceremony of the peace treaty as Dawn’s Washington correspondent.