THE story of the state of Israel is a fascinating one. In less than two decades after its creation in 1948, Israel succeeded in transforming itself into the region’s dominant power. Its successes in other spheres of human activity, such as agriculture, medicine and defence technology, have been unparalleled. All this has instilled in its people a sense of pride. Consequently, they see the creation of Israel as the fulfilment of God’s promise.

This mix of mythology, history and faith is heady stuff. But the other half of the story remains either unknown or wrapped in propaganda. The widely held perception, in both Israel and the West, is that the disenfranchised and oppressed Jews of Europe trekked to the holy land, which was then without people or products, and transformed it into a virtual paradise on earth.

This myth was an essential first step in laying claim to the strip of land known since antiquity as Palestine. One of Israel’s early leaders used to explain this philosophy thus: “Palestine was a land without a people, meant for a people without land”. Far from being empty, millions of Palestinian Arabs, both Christians and Muslims, lived on this territory for thousands of years along with a small but thriving community of Arab Jews.

The Jewish community in Palestine, unlike the one in Europe which faced legal and social discrimination, lived a life of dignity and safety. It was only after the British and French started to encourage the European Jews to migrate to Palestine in the early part of the 20th century that the locals developed an understandable sense of anger and dismay. The Middle East’s history of the first half of the 20th century reveals a game of deceit and manipulation by the colonial powers. They first sought to exploit Arab dissatisfaction with Turkish rule and then extinguished the flame of freedom and independence by imposing on them authoritarian local despots.

Between the “partition plan” for Palestine adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, and the 1949 ceasefire that ended the Arab-Israel war, thousands of Palestinians were expelled from towns and villages, to make way for the European Jews. Over the years, nearly six million Palestinians were to become unwanted refugees in neighbouring countries.

Israel, in the meantime, has continued to expand from what it originally was when the UN approved the partition plan in November 1947. This action divided British-mandated Palestine into two states — one for the Arabs, who were to get 44 per cent of the territory and one for the Jews, who were given 56 per cent, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem under international stewardship. This was Europe’s blood money for the crimes it committed against the Jews. But within a year, after Israel’s 1948 war, the Palestinians were left with only 22 per cent of old Palestine. Since the 1967 Middle East war, Israel has continued to establish new settlements, incorporating more territory in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

Its technological edge and military prowess notwithstanding, a major contradiction continues to haunt Israeli polity. While its security and independence is guaranteed by the US, it continues to lack the legitimacy it passionately yearns for. But this can only be obtained from a peace treaty with the Palestinians, negotiated as one between “equals” and leading to the establishment of two sovereign and sustainable states. Though Israel favours a settlement, it refuses to enter into serious negotiations, as an equal partner, with the representatives of the Palestinians. Instead, it wishes to impose a settlement on them unilaterally — a goal that was facilitated by separate deals with Egypt and Jordan.

Israel later set out to impose similar arrangements on the Syrians and the Lebanese. The objective was to cut off the Palestinians from their core support, isolate them politically, weaken them economically, and then force a settlement on them. But it grossly misread the situation. Instead of seeking a negotiated settlement with Yasser Arafat, who had both the influence and the authority to accept a compromise, (notwithstanding Fatah’s corruption and inefficiency), it tried to sideline and then ostracise him.

Mahmoud Abbas’s election as Arafat’s successor was welcomed widely, for he was seen as a moderate. Yet the Israelis never entered into serious negotiations with him. Consequently, he soon lost credibility with the Palestinians. After Hamas’s victory in elections considered free and fair by international observers, the Israelis introduced a tactical change in their approach. Having dismissed Mahmoud Abbas as weak and ineffective, and therefore, not a fit partner for negotiations, Tel Aviv found it convenient to use Hamas’s election victory as a pretext for its refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians.

Tagged as a terrorist organisation, Hamas was condemned for refusing to recognise the Jewish state. What Tel Aviv ignored was the fact that Hamas’s election victory was due primarily to policies pursued by Israel. While Israel wants Hamas to give up its only card (recognition of Israel) even before negotiations begin, it refuses to even affirm whether it is willing to accept the establishment of a viable independent Palestinian state. It also ignores that Hamas’s readiness to negotiate with Israel amounts to de facto recognition. De jure recognition can come about only after a mutually negotiated peace settlement.

It was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who came up with the idea of affecting a withdrawal from Gaza, while creating newer and larger settlements, and also declared Israel’s new frontiers unilaterally. The euphoria created by Sharon’s plans was seized upon by some Muslim leaders as a valid reason for them to extend recognition to the Jewish state.

His successor, Ehud Olmert, has confirmed that he intends to go ahead with Sharon’s plans to dismantle a few, far-flung Jewish settlements, while incorporating larger ones into Israel. This could result in the West Bank being divided into three or four zones, separated from each other by land that will remain under Israeli control. Olmert also insists on the border between the West Bank and Jordan being patrolled by his troops. Under such circumstances, a viable, independent Palestinian state is out of the question.

Regrettably, Olmert was encouraged in this by the negative reaction of both the US and the EU to Hamas’s victory and their suspension of aid to the democratically elected Palestinian Authority, threatening the occupied territory with the collapse of public services.

Now Prime Minister Olmert has succeeded in convincing the White House that in the absence of a “partner for peace”, he has no option but to draw Israel’s final borders and to wall off his people from the Palestinians, all in the name of peace and stability in the region. Bush praised the plan as a “bold and important step towards the peace we both support”, but expressed no concern over the serious consequences of Olmert’s unilateral “convergence” plans. By annexing West Bank lands, claiming Jerusalem’s old city, drawing a new security border along the Jordan Wall and keeping military occupation in place in the West Bank for years, the convergence plan would kill the Palestinian dream of self-determination.

It would also amount to the abandonment of UN Resolution 242, which called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in the 1967 war, in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel. This was to be the basis for the “two-state solution”. The convergence plan would also deny the Palestinians their dream of having East Jerusalem, including the old city of Haram Al Sharif, as the capital of their state.

In the meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, instead of joining hands with Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, is joining the West in trying to isolate Hamas. By pushing for a referendum on the nature of a final peace with Israel, without having first taken steps to bring Hamas on board, he has created an unnecessary political crisis at a time when the Palestinians should be closing ranks. The Israeli leadership may welcome this development as promoting its own agenda, but the evidence coming out of the occupied territory indicates that Hamas is gaining in popularity. It is also incumbent on Hamas to adopt a more moderate position, so as to present itself as a serious interlocutor with the Israelis, otherwise Israel will be able to take full advantage of this schism between Palestinian factions. It has already unleashed another round of murderous violence against civilians and even threatened to have the prime minister killed, if found “implicated” in terrorism. At the same time, by trying to bypass the elected Palestinian representatives, Israel is making a grave mistake. It must not forget that its efforts to undermine Fatah gave credibility to Hamas. If it refuses to deal with Hamas now, it will surely one day face Islamic Jihad, and then Al Qaeda will not be far behind.

If Israel were genuinely interested in peace, it could have taken advantage of the many opportunities it got during the Arafat period. Hamas today may be tagged as a party of “Islamists”, but the Fatah leadership that negotiated at Madrid, Oslo, Camp David and other places, consisted of secular, nationalist and credible Palestinian representatives. And yet, what is there to show for the Palestinians’ patience, accommodation and compromise? More areas under Israeli control, newer and larger Jewish settlements springing up on their land and the once hoped for Palestinian state chopped up into many small enclaves.

The success of Hamas, itself an outcome of Israeli policies, is now being used to sabotage the prospects of peace. Instead of demanding that Hamas recognise Israel, the latter should be asked whether even the removal of Hamas from the negotiating table will persuade it to honour the UN resolutions, to dismantle illegal settlements, undo the unlawful annexations and tear down the wall, already declared illegal by the International Court of Justice.

In this context, it was a pleasant surprise to see Palestine’s foreign minister being received by our leadership recently and being given the assurance of continuing support and a grant of three million dollars. Should we deduce that the much-hyped meeting between the Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri and his then counterpart Silvan Shalom in 2005, has proved to be a non-event it was anticipated to be? Or is Islamabad finally recognising that the abandonment of historic, national commitments, in return for short-term gains, and that too at the behest of others, is not a wise nor honourable way to conduct policy?

The writer is a former ambassador.

INDIA should not take its democratic system for granted. The nation lost it once, not through the army, as is the practice in Pakistan, but because of the actions of an elected prime minister. Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency 31 years ago in June.

She suspended even fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. Hers was a desperate endeavour to ward off disqualification for six years, a verdict pronounced by the Allahabad High Court over an election offence.

That the same Congress party, which imposed the emergency, today leads a coalition government is a coincidence. But the inclusion of six ministers of the emergency days in the central cabinet is not. They were willing tools of the tyranny that was perpetrated for 19 months under the guidance of Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi’s son, an extra-constitutional authority. Not one of them was punished for their misdeeds.

Their rule during the emergency resulted in the detention of more than one hundred thousand people without trial. The press was gagged and effective dissent was smothered, followed by a general erosion of democratic values. The attitude of the general run of public functionaries was largely characterised by a paralysis of the will to do the right thing.

The emergency may not be repeated. But the nation still suffers from its effects. Both the politicians and civil servants strayed from their assigned roles. They have not yet come back to the right path. The hopeful factor is that the Communist Party of India (Marxist), supporting the Congress-led coalition, was against the emergency. It will never allow the government to bring back those black days. But since part of the left supported Indira Gandhi, the Marxists were somewhat equivocal. Even now the party withdraws from total resistance when it comes to the crunch.

Fortunately, President Abdul Kalam — he returned the Office of Profit Bill to parliament — is not Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed who was president when the emergency was imposed. Without raising questions, he signed the declaration on the night of June 25, although Indira Gandhi did not have the requisite cabinet approval. It was only on the morning of June 26, after the emergency had been declared, that she called the cabinet meeting and had her actions approved.

There is no record of any minister resigning or registering dissent against the emergency. The late Swaran Singh was the only minister who said at the cabinet meeting where Mrs Gandhi’s action was endorsed that the country was already under an emergency. It was explained to him that what had been imposed was “internal” while the ongoing one, which was declared following China’s attack on India in 1962, was “external”. Even then, Swaran Singh had to pay the price for daring to make inquiries. He was dropped from the cabinet subsequently.

It is difficult to imagine that Congress will make amends for the abuse and misuse of authority. But it can avoid one thing which affected the people all over the country at that time — the misuse of power. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who still has some moral stature left, can at least restore the rule of law. Congress and non-Congress governments continue to govern the states according to their party’s or personal point of view. They continue to use the diluted version of the detention law to punish their opponents and critics.

During the emergency a large number of officers, district magistrates and police commissioners obediently carried out the instructions of politicians and administrative heads issued out of personal or political considerations. Things are no different now, especially in the states.

The worst fallout of the emergency is that public servants have invariably become an instrument in the hands of ministers at the centre and in the states. Ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour have become generally dim and in many cases beyond the mental grasp of many public functionaries. The desire for self-preservation guides their actions and behaviour. Manmohan Singh, who was a top civil servant, should have devised some steps to retrieve the situation.

Anxiety to survive at any cost is the crux of the approach to the problems before public servants. The Mussoorie Academy where they are trained is an ivory tower.

It is too elitist and too distant for the common man. It should be obligatory for the trainees to work with NGOs at the grassroots level. They may learn, if not imbibe, the qualities of humility which officials lack.

There has to be a mechanism to punish errant civil servants. None was demoted or sacked for deliberately flouting laws and harassing those who were against the emergency. Some of them occupy key positions today and it can be seen that the Congress is their godfather. The Shah Commission, which examined the excesses committed during the emergency, recommended to the government to determine what went wrong not only in each individual case but how a similar situation could be averted in the future. No remedial methods could be taken because the architects of the emergency came back to power in the wake of the Janata Party’s disintegration. Today, another look at what happened then is not possible. The Congress is presided over by Sonia Gandhi who tries to copy Indira Gandhi in every way. Indira Gandhi had sterling qualities but her authoritarian tendencies got the better of her too often.

What happened was the subversion of a system. If its recurrence is to be prevented, it has to be overhauled. The key to it are the civil servants, including the police. Their attitude has to change. They cannot act in a democratic system as public servants do in an authoritarian government. Of course, nothing can be done without a change of political masters.

This will necessitate soul-searching both at the political and administrative levels. If the officials on the one side and the politicians on the other do not limit their areas of operation to their respective fields, the nation cannot be kept safe for working a democratic system.

Unless this awareness permeates all strata of society, it will be difficult to avoid the recurrence of an emergency or something similar. The best way to begin is for the six ministers of “the emergency fame” to step down voluntarily so that the nation starts with a clean slate. As American luminary Robert Frost said, “Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truth being in or out of favour.”

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.