Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Major Aberrations in Indian Response towards Palestine Question:The Case of Vajpayee Government
The foreign policy of India was founded on the principle of non-alignment and its unstinting support to all national liberation movements. It was reflected in its policy towards all the struggles including the Middle East. India was one the leading countries which opposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel in November 1947. Since then, India had been a moral and physical supporter for the Palestinian struggle for an independent state until 1992. The role of India as the champion of non-align movement always inspired the Palestinians to continue its struggle for an independent state. Unfortunately, this trend gradually waned especially when India accorded recognition to the State of Israel in 1992. When the BJP government under Vajpayee came to power in 1998, Indian foreign policy was shifted from non-alignment to strategic-diplomatic interest towards the USA and Israel. It marked the end of India’s age-old policy of supporting national liberation movements and the fight against colonialism and imperialism. Since then, India was not ready to condemn the human rights violation of Israel against the Palestinians. The remarkable development of Indo-Israeli relation was a setback for the Indo-Arab relations, taking into account of India’s dependency of oil in the Gulf region and the future of millions of Indian labour force in the Middle East. In fact, the ominous trend of Indian foreign policy was that the BJP government established close ties with Israel mainly with the view to contain Islamic terrorism. According to Sangh Parivar, Israel already proved its capability of facing the Palestinian terrorism.
Genesis of Indian Response to the Palestine Question
India’s relation with the Palestinians dates back to Indian independence movement. Gandhi’s attempt to woo Indian Muslims for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity and Nehru’s negative assessment of the Zionist movement, which he considered the child of imperialism, led to the Indian National Congress to adopt a pro-Arab policy in the Arab-Jewish conflict. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had in their writings and speeches talked the denial of justice to the Palestinians. Gandhiji was against the partition of Palestinians and said that Palestinians should not pay for the crimes of Europeans.1 In 1947 just as India suffered the partition of the subcontinent, the government proposed a plan as a member of the UN Special Committee on Palestine to create a federal state with autonomy for Jewish residents of Palestine. The Plan was rejected, and India joined Arab nations to oppose the partition of the region.2
Nehru opened the doors to diplomatic association in the 1950s, especially when the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Walter Eytan, visited India in 1952, but with the Suez crisis of 1956 and growth of Arab nationalism, the government remained reluctant to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Nehru in his speech in Parliament on 7 August 1958 explained why India had no diplomatic relation with Israel:
This attitude was adopted after careful consideration of the balance of forces. It is not a matter of high principle, but serve and be helpful in that area. We should like the problem between Israel and the Arab countries to be settled peacefully. After careful thought we felt that while recognizing Israel as an entity we need not at this stage exchange diplomatic personnel.3
In 1974, at the request of 55 member states, the ‘Question of Palestine’ was included in the agenda of the UN to address the status and fate of the people of Palestine. India was one among the 55 countries, which signed the memorandum asking for the creation of a separate item on the agenda of the UN.4
India adopted an ambiguous policy towards Israel deciding on a half-hearted delayed recognition of the Jewish state but refusing to establish full diplomatic relations. The perception of serving Indian national interests by a negative policy towards Israel in the Middle East was so strong among the Indian leadership in spite of the failure of Arab support of India’s war efforts with Pakistan (1965 and 1971) and China (1962).5 India was an active member of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People, established in 1975. India has consistently supported Palestinian’s cause in NAM meetings. India was founder member of the NAM Ministerial Committee on Palestine. In 1975, India became the first non-Arab state to recognize the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO office in New Delhi was accorded full diplomatic recognition by the government of India in March 1980. Moreover, India was one of the first countries to recognize the state of Palestine in 1988.6 Hence for almost four decades, the Indian government, mainly led by Nehru’s Congress Party, stayed close to Arab nationalism had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Israel as long as the Arab-Israeli problem remained unsettled.
Events Leading to Transformation of Indian Policy
In the years following independence, India, suspicious of the US, maintained a stance that was ostensibly non-aligned, although in practice favourably inclined towards the Soviet Union. It also adopted a rhetoric stance supportive of the Palestinian cause and contrary to Israel. The reasons for this are complex and yet fully explained. The role of Nehru as the leftist, intellectual, and the intuitive championing of the downtrodden always inspired the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. This continued, and to some extent strengthened, during the period of Indira Gandhi. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last decade of the last century and the rise of American hegemony in what is now conventionally called as a unipolar world, led to a major rethink of India’s stance vis-à-vis the United States, and more recently, Israel.7
When Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime minister of India in October 1984, he signaled a fresh Indian approach towards Israel. However, Rajiv Gandhi could not make much head way to establish normal relations with Israel fearing public protest. It was during the period of the late Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, under the pretext of the on going Middle East peace process.8 At the pragmatic level, the traders and business lobby root for closer relations with Israel. This money conscious class, which has become most vocal in claiming that business interests should be the key component in India’s foreign policy decisions, was not ready to think about the Palestinians. Since Palestine has little to offer financially or technologically, while Israel can sell to India what the US refuses to sell, these pragmatists insists that New Delhi has no option but to open the door towards ‘valuable’ Israel.
In fact, it was the imperatives of the changed global and regional politico-strategic situation New Delhi gradually de-linked its Israel policy from the Arab-Israeli conflict and developed a new perception of common interests with Jerusalem. Since the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1992, the two countries have rapidly developed close relations and cooperate in many areas of mutual interest-cultural, economic, political and matters of defence and security. Over a period of five years, India and Israel developed the vast institutional area of bilateral relations which in normal circumstances requires a decade or more. The establishment of full diplomatic ties also paved the way for greater economic cooperation between the two countries. However, India had indirect ties with Israel almost clandestine nature. Soon after the Indo-China war, Israel Chief of Staff General David Shaltiel visited India in 1963. After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in October 1984, India sought Israel’s help to improve the protection of its important people. It was also believed that since early 1980s, India and Israel were engaged in a secret dialogue over destroying Pakistan’s nuclear facility in Kahuta and signaling military agreements.9
The normalization of bilateral ties in the post-cold war period enabled India and Israel to develop their security and commercial interests. During this period of uncertainty the Indian military establishment was facing a series of challenges. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, India’s longstanding ally and the biggest supplier of arms, was a big strategic blow to India. Suddenly, crucial supplies of arms and military spare parts were interrupted. India felt the need to diversify its defense suppliers, realizing the dangers of too much dependence on one source. Israel’s developed and research-oriented industrial-military complex is viewed by India as a good option answering some of its defence and security needs. Israel’s sophisticated expertise in manufacturing and upgrading high-combat aircraft, anti-tactical ballistic missiles, electronic warfare and communication equipment, as well as security technology are of particular interest to India. The Indian military officials are not only interested in Israeli weapons and technology, but they have also shown interest in the Israel Defence Force’s successful warfare strategies and concepts.10
The Policy Perspectives of Vajpayee Government
The ground shifted in 1998 when the Hindu-Right wing forged a coalition government, exploded nuclear weapons and proceeded to reach out to both the US and Israel, trying to create a Washington-Tel Aviv-New Delhi entente against communism and Islam- the problem ideologies as posed by US Political Scientist Samuel Huntington’s style of fundamentalist geopolitics. The Sangh Parivar groups had special interest towards Israel. The Israeli war against Arabs was considered a model for the Sangh Parivar group not only to face the challenge of Pakistan but also Islam and Muslims in general. Hindutva’s alliance with the Jewish-Zionist state is not so strange after all, because at the ideological level Hindutva is much of the race-state, and both cast aspersions at the presence of a Muslim minority.
There seems to be an ideological affinity between Israel’s right wing parties (to which Sharon belongs) the Jana Sangh and the BJP. Israel glorifies Zionism and according to Harvard Sociologist, Natham Glazer, it is synonymous with democratic principles of equality of human rights. But in Israel there is a ban on the “inter-denominational marriage”. There is only the “Jewish nation” and the “Jewish people”, recognized under Zionism. These are and will always remain the “chosen people” of the Old Testament. The BJP with its Sangh Parivar believes in similar ideology of an exclusive Hindu nation or “Hindu Rashtra”.11
When the Hindu right government came to power in 1998, the issue of terrorism took on a new urgency, since this government was prone to depict any act of violence by a Muslim as terrorism, and consequently any act of violence by a Hindu as either self-defense or the resentment of years of tyranny. In 1994, L.K.Advani, then Leader of Opposition in India and major groups in the Hindu Right, visited Israel and has since developed warm ties with the Zionist elements in the Israeli establishment. The Indo-Israeli relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duds between Pakistan and Indian forces in Kargil. Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a bloomy defense trade and rising commercial ties. During his visit to Israel in 2000, Advani, the then Home Minister, said that he wanted to learn how Israel has dealt with Islamic fundamentalism. He expressed his admiration to Israel’s Mossad, for its proved expert in this field. Jaswant Singh, the then External affairs Minister also accompanied Advani. It was followed by the visit of Brajesh Mishra, the then Indian National Security Advisor. Similarly, the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, came to India twice in August 2000 and January 2001.12
The visit of Israeli Prime minister, Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003 was a turning point in the history of India’s foreign policy towards Middle East.13 Sharon, heading a 150-member delegation during this first ever visit by an Israeli Prime minister to India, intended to make some defence and trade ties to pave the way for a three-way strategic alliance with the US. Although India extended a warm welcome to Israeli Prime Minister at official level, there was a strong protest from many quarters stating that it would undermine the country’s stand on the Palestine issue. Sharon was no consistent opponent of terrorism, but himself guilty of bitter forms of terrorism against Palestinian people. He deserved to be tried as a war criminal for the Sabra and Chatilla massacres of 1982. He was also responsible for the killing of 17,000 civilian in Lebanon in an unprovoked war. A massive protest was organized against the Sharon on 9 September by various left and democratic organizations including CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML), RSP, Forward Block and Janatha Dal (S). They claimed, “it was a grave reversal of nationally accepted policy on Palestine”. The protest also came from the Amnesty International which had asked the Government to take up the issue of human rights violation of Palestinians and the illegal occupation of their territory by Israel. It is, however, significant that the day after Sharonn’s departure, 18 Arab diplomats were invited by the Ministry of External Affairs to assure them that India continued to support the Palestinian cause. Their lingering doubts can be summarized in the following words of a diplomat. “The overwhelming reception that India gave to Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon makes us ask ourselves: what happened to fifty years of Indo-Arab relations? Perhaps it was never built on strong enough foundations.14
In spite of all these protests, Sharon successfully completed his visit and signed six agreements. The most important level of discussion between India and Israel was related to combating terrorism. The BJP and Sangh Parivar strongly believed that establishing close ties with Israel would help India to combat terrorism. It shows that the struggle for an independent state of Palestine was treated as terrorism, a volt face traditional Indian stand based on Indian colonial experience. During the Vajpayee rule Israel became the second largest arms dealer with India, next only to Russia.15 The change of Indian attitude was visible even in the aftermath of the American led war against Iraq. During this period India continued its policy of appeasing American interest and was not ready to condemn the aggressive policy of the US against Iraq. Similarly, Israeli attack against Palestinians was also ignored by India. Moreover, India also rejected the Palestinian request for a mediation. The only Indian response in this direction was the statement that a permanent peace should be established in the Middle East. In the last couple of years, New Delhi had virtually forgotten the suffering of the Palestinians as a result of its Israeli policies. The inhuman Israeli policies towards Palestinians, the targeted assassination of Palestinian leaders, and the building of the Apartheid were all virtually glossed over by New Delhi during the rule of National Democratic Alliance led by BJP and Vajpayee. The Palestinian envoy to India, Khalid Sheikh, one of the longest-serving diplomats, was virtually declared persona non grata by the NDA government. He was recalled by Arafat, the late leader of the Palestinians under pressure from New Delhi.16 It also marked the departure of Indian attitude to the Palestinian question.
Conclusions
The Indo-Israeli relation was considered as a great setback for the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. It was during the period of Vajpayee government India established strong ties with Israel especially in the field of defence and science. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union India was looking for a defence ally against Pakistan. As the US was not fully comply with Indian defence requirements, Israel came forward to satisfy Indian demands. The visit of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, made a great impact in the Indian foreign policy as it signaled the end of Indian support to the Palestinian cause. It was the Pakistan factor which motivated India to move towards the friendship with Israel. Moreover, the ideology of Sangh Parivar, that the challenge of Islamic terrorism can be effectively met with the aid from Israel, also influenced Indian foreign policy. For Israel, the nuclear capacity of Pakistan is a threat to its own existence. Hence this reciprocal benefit helped both India and Israel to come closer.
The Indo-Israeli relation also marked the end of non-alignment policy of India and its support to the national liberation movements. During the Vajpayee government India was not interested in responding to the major events in the Middle East, especially the US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. The Indian stand was that it would support a peaceful solution to the Palestine question, rejecting any involvement in this matter. This marked the fundamental departure of Indian foreign policy founded by Jawaharlal Nehru. The sudden shift of India’s policy was influenced by the Sangh Parivar, which always admired the Israeli tactic of targeted assassinations, ethnic cleansing and territorial aggrandizement. Further, India was interested to appease the US interest in the Middle East. If India continues a policy of this kind it would damage the traditional Indo-Arab relations, and the future of millions of Indians, especially from Kerala, who are employed in the Middle East. The statements of new UPA government under Manmohan Sigh that “traditional ties with West Asia will be given fresh thrust” and “the government reiterates India’s decade old commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own”17 were not enough to rewrite the foreign policy commitments made by the former Vajpayee regime. It depends on the positive response of India to the struggle of the Palestinian people for an independent state.
Endotes
1. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2125/stories/20041217000405900.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Vijay Prashad, “Imperialism, Israel & India, Hindutva-Zionism :An Alliance of New Epoch” at http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2002/feb/vijay_prashad.htm.
4. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
5. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
6. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
7. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8146
8. See http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/world/global20000804a.html ; http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html ; http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm and http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
9. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
10. Ibid.
11. Vijay Prashad, n.3
12. Ibid.
13. For details see n.9 and http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/03praful.htm
14. T.T.Paulose, “India-Israel Relations:Sharon’s Visit Signals Ideological Shift”, at http://www.asianaffairs.com/oct2003/diplomacy_in_israel.htm
15. See the major landmarks in the Indo_Israel relations at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Nanjundiah_India-Palestinians.htm
16. http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
17 http://in.news.yahoo.com/040527/137/2dc9b.html
Genesis of Indian Response to the Palestine Question
India’s relation with the Palestinians dates back to Indian independence movement. Gandhi’s attempt to woo Indian Muslims for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity and Nehru’s negative assessment of the Zionist movement, which he considered the child of imperialism, led to the Indian National Congress to adopt a pro-Arab policy in the Arab-Jewish conflict. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru had in their writings and speeches talked the denial of justice to the Palestinians. Gandhiji was against the partition of Palestinians and said that Palestinians should not pay for the crimes of Europeans.1 In 1947 just as India suffered the partition of the subcontinent, the government proposed a plan as a member of the UN Special Committee on Palestine to create a federal state with autonomy for Jewish residents of Palestine. The Plan was rejected, and India joined Arab nations to oppose the partition of the region.2
Nehru opened the doors to diplomatic association in the 1950s, especially when the Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Walter Eytan, visited India in 1952, but with the Suez crisis of 1956 and growth of Arab nationalism, the government remained reluctant to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Nehru in his speech in Parliament on 7 August 1958 explained why India had no diplomatic relation with Israel:
This attitude was adopted after careful consideration of the balance of forces. It is not a matter of high principle, but serve and be helpful in that area. We should like the problem between Israel and the Arab countries to be settled peacefully. After careful thought we felt that while recognizing Israel as an entity we need not at this stage exchange diplomatic personnel.3
In 1974, at the request of 55 member states, the ‘Question of Palestine’ was included in the agenda of the UN to address the status and fate of the people of Palestine. India was one among the 55 countries, which signed the memorandum asking for the creation of a separate item on the agenda of the UN.4
India adopted an ambiguous policy towards Israel deciding on a half-hearted delayed recognition of the Jewish state but refusing to establish full diplomatic relations. The perception of serving Indian national interests by a negative policy towards Israel in the Middle East was so strong among the Indian leadership in spite of the failure of Arab support of India’s war efforts with Pakistan (1965 and 1971) and China (1962).5 India was an active member of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of Palestinian People, established in 1975. India has consistently supported Palestinian’s cause in NAM meetings. India was founder member of the NAM Ministerial Committee on Palestine. In 1975, India became the first non-Arab state to recognize the PLO as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO office in New Delhi was accorded full diplomatic recognition by the government of India in March 1980. Moreover, India was one of the first countries to recognize the state of Palestine in 1988.6 Hence for almost four decades, the Indian government, mainly led by Nehru’s Congress Party, stayed close to Arab nationalism had refused to engage in diplomatic relations with Israel as long as the Arab-Israeli problem remained unsettled.
Events Leading to Transformation of Indian Policy
In the years following independence, India, suspicious of the US, maintained a stance that was ostensibly non-aligned, although in practice favourably inclined towards the Soviet Union. It also adopted a rhetoric stance supportive of the Palestinian cause and contrary to Israel. The reasons for this are complex and yet fully explained. The role of Nehru as the leftist, intellectual, and the intuitive championing of the downtrodden always inspired the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. This continued, and to some extent strengthened, during the period of Indira Gandhi. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in the last decade of the last century and the rise of American hegemony in what is now conventionally called as a unipolar world, led to a major rethink of India’s stance vis-à-vis the United States, and more recently, Israel.7
When Rajiv Gandhi became the Prime minister of India in October 1984, he signaled a fresh Indian approach towards Israel. However, Rajiv Gandhi could not make much head way to establish normal relations with Israel fearing public protest. It was during the period of the late Prime Minister P.V.Narasimha Rao India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, under the pretext of the on going Middle East peace process.8 At the pragmatic level, the traders and business lobby root for closer relations with Israel. This money conscious class, which has become most vocal in claiming that business interests should be the key component in India’s foreign policy decisions, was not ready to think about the Palestinians. Since Palestine has little to offer financially or technologically, while Israel can sell to India what the US refuses to sell, these pragmatists insists that New Delhi has no option but to open the door towards ‘valuable’ Israel.
In fact, it was the imperatives of the changed global and regional politico-strategic situation New Delhi gradually de-linked its Israel policy from the Arab-Israeli conflict and developed a new perception of common interests with Jerusalem. Since the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1992, the two countries have rapidly developed close relations and cooperate in many areas of mutual interest-cultural, economic, political and matters of defence and security. Over a period of five years, India and Israel developed the vast institutional area of bilateral relations which in normal circumstances requires a decade or more. The establishment of full diplomatic ties also paved the way for greater economic cooperation between the two countries. However, India had indirect ties with Israel almost clandestine nature. Soon after the Indo-China war, Israel Chief of Staff General David Shaltiel visited India in 1963. After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in October 1984, India sought Israel’s help to improve the protection of its important people. It was also believed that since early 1980s, India and Israel were engaged in a secret dialogue over destroying Pakistan’s nuclear facility in Kahuta and signaling military agreements.9
The normalization of bilateral ties in the post-cold war period enabled India and Israel to develop their security and commercial interests. During this period of uncertainty the Indian military establishment was facing a series of challenges. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, India’s longstanding ally and the biggest supplier of arms, was a big strategic blow to India. Suddenly, crucial supplies of arms and military spare parts were interrupted. India felt the need to diversify its defense suppliers, realizing the dangers of too much dependence on one source. Israel’s developed and research-oriented industrial-military complex is viewed by India as a good option answering some of its defence and security needs. Israel’s sophisticated expertise in manufacturing and upgrading high-combat aircraft, anti-tactical ballistic missiles, electronic warfare and communication equipment, as well as security technology are of particular interest to India. The Indian military officials are not only interested in Israeli weapons and technology, but they have also shown interest in the Israel Defence Force’s successful warfare strategies and concepts.10
The Policy Perspectives of Vajpayee Government
The ground shifted in 1998 when the Hindu-Right wing forged a coalition government, exploded nuclear weapons and proceeded to reach out to both the US and Israel, trying to create a Washington-Tel Aviv-New Delhi entente against communism and Islam- the problem ideologies as posed by US Political Scientist Samuel Huntington’s style of fundamentalist geopolitics. The Sangh Parivar groups had special interest towards Israel. The Israeli war against Arabs was considered a model for the Sangh Parivar group not only to face the challenge of Pakistan but also Islam and Muslims in general. Hindutva’s alliance with the Jewish-Zionist state is not so strange after all, because at the ideological level Hindutva is much of the race-state, and both cast aspersions at the presence of a Muslim minority.
There seems to be an ideological affinity between Israel’s right wing parties (to which Sharon belongs) the Jana Sangh and the BJP. Israel glorifies Zionism and according to Harvard Sociologist, Natham Glazer, it is synonymous with democratic principles of equality of human rights. But in Israel there is a ban on the “inter-denominational marriage”. There is only the “Jewish nation” and the “Jewish people”, recognized under Zionism. These are and will always remain the “chosen people” of the Old Testament. The BJP with its Sangh Parivar believes in similar ideology of an exclusive Hindu nation or “Hindu Rashtra”.11
When the Hindu right government came to power in 1998, the issue of terrorism took on a new urgency, since this government was prone to depict any act of violence by a Muslim as terrorism, and consequently any act of violence by a Hindu as either self-defense or the resentment of years of tyranny. In 1994, L.K.Advani, then Leader of Opposition in India and major groups in the Hindu Right, visited Israel and has since developed warm ties with the Zionist elements in the Israeli establishment. The Indo-Israeli relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duds between Pakistan and Indian forces in Kargil. Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a bloomy defense trade and rising commercial ties. During his visit to Israel in 2000, Advani, the then Home Minister, said that he wanted to learn how Israel has dealt with Islamic fundamentalism. He expressed his admiration to Israel’s Mossad, for its proved expert in this field. Jaswant Singh, the then External affairs Minister also accompanied Advani. It was followed by the visit of Brajesh Mishra, the then Indian National Security Advisor. Similarly, the then Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, came to India twice in August 2000 and January 2001.12
The visit of Israeli Prime minister, Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003 was a turning point in the history of India’s foreign policy towards Middle East.13 Sharon, heading a 150-member delegation during this first ever visit by an Israeli Prime minister to India, intended to make some defence and trade ties to pave the way for a three-way strategic alliance with the US. Although India extended a warm welcome to Israeli Prime Minister at official level, there was a strong protest from many quarters stating that it would undermine the country’s stand on the Palestine issue. Sharon was no consistent opponent of terrorism, but himself guilty of bitter forms of terrorism against Palestinian people. He deserved to be tried as a war criminal for the Sabra and Chatilla massacres of 1982. He was also responsible for the killing of 17,000 civilian in Lebanon in an unprovoked war. A massive protest was organized against the Sharon on 9 September by various left and democratic organizations including CPI, CPI(M), CPI(ML), RSP, Forward Block and Janatha Dal (S). They claimed, “it was a grave reversal of nationally accepted policy on Palestine”. The protest also came from the Amnesty International which had asked the Government to take up the issue of human rights violation of Palestinians and the illegal occupation of their territory by Israel. It is, however, significant that the day after Sharonn’s departure, 18 Arab diplomats were invited by the Ministry of External Affairs to assure them that India continued to support the Palestinian cause. Their lingering doubts can be summarized in the following words of a diplomat. “The overwhelming reception that India gave to Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon makes us ask ourselves: what happened to fifty years of Indo-Arab relations? Perhaps it was never built on strong enough foundations.14
In spite of all these protests, Sharon successfully completed his visit and signed six agreements. The most important level of discussion between India and Israel was related to combating terrorism. The BJP and Sangh Parivar strongly believed that establishing close ties with Israel would help India to combat terrorism. It shows that the struggle for an independent state of Palestine was treated as terrorism, a volt face traditional Indian stand based on Indian colonial experience. During the Vajpayee rule Israel became the second largest arms dealer with India, next only to Russia.15 The change of Indian attitude was visible even in the aftermath of the American led war against Iraq. During this period India continued its policy of appeasing American interest and was not ready to condemn the aggressive policy of the US against Iraq. Similarly, Israeli attack against Palestinians was also ignored by India. Moreover, India also rejected the Palestinian request for a mediation. The only Indian response in this direction was the statement that a permanent peace should be established in the Middle East. In the last couple of years, New Delhi had virtually forgotten the suffering of the Palestinians as a result of its Israeli policies. The inhuman Israeli policies towards Palestinians, the targeted assassination of Palestinian leaders, and the building of the Apartheid were all virtually glossed over by New Delhi during the rule of National Democratic Alliance led by BJP and Vajpayee. The Palestinian envoy to India, Khalid Sheikh, one of the longest-serving diplomats, was virtually declared persona non grata by the NDA government. He was recalled by Arafat, the late leader of the Palestinians under pressure from New Delhi.16 It also marked the departure of Indian attitude to the Palestinian question.
Conclusions
The Indo-Israeli relation was considered as a great setback for the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. It was during the period of Vajpayee government India established strong ties with Israel especially in the field of defence and science. In fact, since the fall of the Soviet Union India was looking for a defence ally against Pakistan. As the US was not fully comply with Indian defence requirements, Israel came forward to satisfy Indian demands. The visit of Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, made a great impact in the Indian foreign policy as it signaled the end of Indian support to the Palestinian cause. It was the Pakistan factor which motivated India to move towards the friendship with Israel. Moreover, the ideology of Sangh Parivar, that the challenge of Islamic terrorism can be effectively met with the aid from Israel, also influenced Indian foreign policy. For Israel, the nuclear capacity of Pakistan is a threat to its own existence. Hence this reciprocal benefit helped both India and Israel to come closer.
The Indo-Israeli relation also marked the end of non-alignment policy of India and its support to the national liberation movements. During the Vajpayee government India was not interested in responding to the major events in the Middle East, especially the US invasion of Iraq and the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. The Indian stand was that it would support a peaceful solution to the Palestine question, rejecting any involvement in this matter. This marked the fundamental departure of Indian foreign policy founded by Jawaharlal Nehru. The sudden shift of India’s policy was influenced by the Sangh Parivar, which always admired the Israeli tactic of targeted assassinations, ethnic cleansing and territorial aggrandizement. Further, India was interested to appease the US interest in the Middle East. If India continues a policy of this kind it would damage the traditional Indo-Arab relations, and the future of millions of Indians, especially from Kerala, who are employed in the Middle East. The statements of new UPA government under Manmohan Sigh that “traditional ties with West Asia will be given fresh thrust” and “the government reiterates India’s decade old commitment to the cause of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own”17 were not enough to rewrite the foreign policy commitments made by the former Vajpayee regime. It depends on the positive response of India to the struggle of the Palestinian people for an independent state.
Endotes
1. http://www.flonnet.com/fl2125/stories/20041217000405900.htm
2. Ibid.
3. Vijay Prashad, “Imperialism, Israel & India, Hindutva-Zionism :An Alliance of New Epoch” at http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2002/feb/vijay_prashad.htm.
4. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
5. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
6. http://www.india-emb.org.eg/Section%2010/Engl1B.html
7. http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8146
8. See http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra/world/global20000804a.html ; http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html ; http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm and http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
9. http://www.westerndefense.org/bulletins/Dec-01.htm
10. Ibid.
11. Vijay Prashad, n.3
12. Ibid.
13. For details see n.9 and http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/03praful.htm
14. T.T.Paulose, “India-Israel Relations:Sharon’s Visit Signals Ideological Shift”, at http://www.asianaffairs.com/oct2003/diplomacy_in_israel.htm
15. See the major landmarks in the Indo_Israel relations at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Nanjundiah_India-Palestinians.htm
16. http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DF26Df02.html
17 http://in.news.yahoo.com/040527/137/2dc9b.html
Friday, August 25, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Sajad NewsReligion and the Rights of Women: An Islamic Perspective
Taslima Nasreen of Bangladesh became one of the well known writers in the world mainly because of her writings against Islam and its treatment of women. Many people are interested to create controversy in order to become famous. The case of Taslima is more or less same. She bitterly criticized Islam and Quaran. However, most of her allegations were targeted against Islamic priests and their fatwas(religious order). Islam is a religion which was misunderstood by those who have limited knowledge or no knowledge about Islam. These people understand Islam from what is stated by Islamic priests or deeds committed in the name of Islam.
At the outset Islam never recognized priesthood. Islam can be understood only with the right kind of reading of Quaran(with help of right translation, especially English translation by Yousef Ali etc.) and the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (available in the Hadis of Bukari and Muslim). There are thousands of works available to give misdirection of Prophet MohamedÂ’s preaching. A full fledged research in Islam reveals that there were deliberative attempts to tarnish Islam especially by the Zionist groups and other likely organizations. These people fear the spread of Islam which opposes all evils, would undermine the prospects of other communitiesÂ’ interest in the world.
Similarly, there are attempts within Islam to give importance for the priesthood against the will of Prophet Mohamed and Quaran. This led to the negation of the very spirit of Islam. Moreover, the dominance these priesthood led to the orthodoxy in Islam. Here the first victim was women. Islam, more than any other religion in the world, gives a prominent place for women and her rights. The most important allegation against Islam is the dress code imposed by Islam on women. In fact, Islam stipulates that women should wear dress covering the whole body except the face and palms. It is absolutely nonsense that women should cover their faces. What is wrong with covering the whole body? Should women be half dressed to make sex appeal? Why Christian nuns neatly dress? Does covering the whole body means the oppression and violation of human rights?
Islam never prohibited women form engaging jobs and also working with male strangers. Such allegations were based on the wrong interpretation of the Islamic priests. Islam has given all dignity to women. There is no dowry in Islam. According to Islam men should pay a lump sum to the parents of women to get marry. Moreover, Islam orders that all women should be respected and there would be harsh punishment for violence against women. Women have been given equal and dignified status with men in society. Unfortunately the present Islamic society has a male domination. Hence there have been attempts to curtail the freedom of women, which has nothing to do with Islam. So people like Taslima Nasreen should fight against those people and not against Islam. Religions make restrictions to all people for an orderly life. If we want freedom without any restrictions, it would be a barbarous life which existed thousands of years back.
Taslima Nasreen of Bangladesh became one of the well known writers in the world mainly because of her writings against Islam and its treatment of women. Many people are interested to create controversy in order to become famous. The case of Taslima is more or less same. She bitterly criticized Islam and Quaran. However, most of her allegations were targeted against Islamic priests and their fatwas(religious order). Islam is a religion which was misunderstood by those who have limited knowledge or no knowledge about Islam. These people understand Islam from what is stated by Islamic priests or deeds committed in the name of Islam.
At the outset Islam never recognized priesthood. Islam can be understood only with the right kind of reading of Quaran(with help of right translation, especially English translation by Yousef Ali etc.) and the preaching of Prophet Mohammed (available in the Hadis of Bukari and Muslim). There are thousands of works available to give misdirection of Prophet MohamedÂ’s preaching. A full fledged research in Islam reveals that there were deliberative attempts to tarnish Islam especially by the Zionist groups and other likely organizations. These people fear the spread of Islam which opposes all evils, would undermine the prospects of other communitiesÂ’ interest in the world.
Similarly, there are attempts within Islam to give importance for the priesthood against the will of Prophet Mohamed and Quaran. This led to the negation of the very spirit of Islam. Moreover, the dominance these priesthood led to the orthodoxy in Islam. Here the first victim was women. Islam, more than any other religion in the world, gives a prominent place for women and her rights. The most important allegation against Islam is the dress code imposed by Islam on women. In fact, Islam stipulates that women should wear dress covering the whole body except the face and palms. It is absolutely nonsense that women should cover their faces. What is wrong with covering the whole body? Should women be half dressed to make sex appeal? Why Christian nuns neatly dress? Does covering the whole body means the oppression and violation of human rights?
Islam never prohibited women form engaging jobs and also working with male strangers. Such allegations were based on the wrong interpretation of the Islamic priests. Islam has given all dignity to women. There is no dowry in Islam. According to Islam men should pay a lump sum to the parents of women to get marry. Moreover, Islam orders that all women should be respected and there would be harsh punishment for violence against women. Women have been given equal and dignified status with men in society. Unfortunately the present Islamic society has a male domination. Hence there have been attempts to curtail the freedom of women, which has nothing to do with Islam. So people like Taslima Nasreen should fight against those people and not against Islam. Religions make restrictions to all people for an orderly life. If we want freedom without any restrictions, it would be a barbarous life which existed thousands of years back.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Indian Polity and Gandhism in a Changing World
K.M.Sajad Ibrahim[*]
The Indian political system has been experiencing stresses and strains for the last few decades adversely affecting the life of majority people. In fact, the very fabrics of Indian concept of democracy and polity have lost its identity in the changed context, especially with the influence of globalization. Even the constitution of India failed to address many issues related to fundamental rights of equality and justice. In this context it is imperative to analyze the emerging trends in the Indian polity within the context of Gandhian perspective. Although the Indian Constitution paid a respect to Gandhian principles only in the part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy, Gandhian ethos can be seen in many parts of Indian Constitution, including the fundamental rights. Unfortunately, most of the Gandhian concepts mentioned even in the part IV of the Indian Constitution still remain only as an ‘ideals’ and not as a reality. It might be the reason for the erosion of values in Indian polity in the twenty first century.
Gandhiji was probably the political innovator of the century and, as such, his contribution deserves remembrance and reflection. Gandhiji put his trust in his culture and its ideals, describing himself as a practical idealist. Practical idealism was a manageable paradox to Gandhiji, not an oxymoron. In fact, Gandhiji strongly recommended his people to reject western ways to achieve independence. He had no faith that the national independence could solve the problems of Indian society. Political independence was seen as merely one fundamentally important step towards more “true” social order. It is to be remembered that Gandhiji advocated increased justice for all Indians, rather than the greatest good for the greatest number, as an utilitarianism. He wanted a core good for every one.
Gandhiji had a different perception regarding the concept of power. Real progress would require forceful use of political power and this could only be achieved by mobilizing the inherent strengths and will of the masses. Gandhiji asserted that this mobilization required tapping into the cultural strengths of Indian society in such way that it touched the lines of all. For example, the first two things to address on his list of Indian societal ills were discrimination against the untouchable caste and the subjugation of women. Gandhiji had so many facets: traditionalist, the religious innovator, the leader of Indian national liberation, the social reformer, the visionary, the revolutionary, the international human being and then, towards the end of his life , the secularist. Many Indians have recognized and understood only a few of these aspects: the traditional religious Gandhiji and Gandhiji as the leader of the freedom movement.
Gandhiji predicted in the second quarter of the twentieth century that industrial capitalism governing the world would leave humanity in a soulless mess. By the end of the century his prediction had been realized. Globalisation is the restructuring of colonization with far more dire consequences. It is the conversion of the vast sector of the human race, living mostly in the so-called third world, into a global market for exploitation by the neo-capitalists in the main, the G-8 nations. Central to Gandhiji’s economics is self-sufficiency. He opposed industrialization because he foresaw the excess it would lead to, nibbling away at the soul of man eventually leaving him soulless, without conscience or fellow feeling. He drew a parallel between urbanization and where the city exploited the village and colonization, where the country lived on the resources of another. His remedy in both instances is self-sufficiency, not dependency on foreign trade, or foreign investments. He saw the real planning was the best utilization of the whole manpower of India and the distribution of raw products of India in her numerous villages instead of sending them outside and repurchasing finished articles at fabulous prices. Unfortunately, the planning process in India failed to achieve the Gandhian vision and hence the Indian policy makers implemented planning mainly to attune the developmental activities directed by the global capitalism.
The problem of industrialization was its centralization of machines in factories. He supported decentralization and small communities where personal and values kept alive by interpersonal contact and guidance. Gandhiji saw India destroyed through industrialization. His sarvodaya was thus a confederation of small interdependent communities, each self-sufficient in itself and thus not beholden to the other.
In the Parliamentary democracy, as in practice world over, the political parties represent the individual. Only at the times of elections the voter has a role to play. After that the voter goes into hibernation, until the next elections, and the parties that decide what is good for him, which in real terms means what is good for them. Elections are expensive and marked by lavish propaganda, affordable only a party in command of money and muscle power. Criminalization of politics is a cause for concern as political parties are increasingly depending on this element for funds and votes. It is a matter of fact that party politics divide the society into so many groups. Evoking sentiments of religion, clan or ethnic identity creates vote banks. This has resulted in a society where various groups of people are perpetually in conflict vitiating the natural atmosphere of peace and freedom. The party leadership indulges in misuse of power and corruption in order to satisfy supporters inside and outside its own party. As such, the politicians lost credibility, especially in countries like India. Good and selfless person are still there, though in dwindling numbers. The time has come now to consider an alternative to the present system.
Gandhiji’s concept of gram swaraj (village self-government) envisages India as a “union of village republics”. Each of the 640,000 village panchayats or councils would be a self-sufficient autonomous unit with full political and economic power vested in it. Every individual will have direct voice in the government. The individual is the architect of his own government. A panchayat of persons possessing minimum prescribed qualifications and annually elected by adult villagers will conduct the government of the village. It will have all authority and jurisdiction. The panchayat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive rolled into one. Although Indian leaders like Nehru admired the kind of Gandhian gram swaraj, it was only in 1992 through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments a Gandhian dream was realized at least in a limited manner.
In spite of the implementation of the Panchayat Raj system, the Indian polity was not ready to accommodate the Gandhian vision in its policy perspectives. We are now interested only in adopting the western model of development since it is one of the criteria to secure aid form the advanced countries and world capitalism. It is a policy of violating Gandhian principles of self-sufficiency. A complete adoption of Gandhian principles is impractical due to the complex situation of the present world. But there are many areas in which Gandhain thinking can be incorporated especially in the matters of justice to poor, downtrodden, women and other weaker sections. Today majority of the people live in misery. Hungary, ignorance and disease still remains the major problems. All pervasive corruption, aggravated by the use of money and muscle power by the political parties to win elections, has been worsening the situation. The growing divide between the super rich and the downtrodden has given impetus to extremism. Terrorism stakes the country. People will erupt in violence if the state of affairs is allowed to continue. Gandhiji’s prescription can cure all the ills. The system needs to be overhauled and new leadership must take over the reigns of governance.
In the age of globalization the cultural identities and values generated by the great nations in their nation building process have to sacrifice them for the benefit of the most powerful countries of the world. The revolutions in the field technology, trade, education, etc. prompt the developing countries, including India to accept new changes to take advantage in the global competition. In this process, we sacrificed our basic concepts and beliefs. Now the Indian polity is in search of solutions to address issues confronted by the common man. The communal violence, caste violence, the violation of the rights of women and children, the environmental issues, the issues related to urbanization etc. are only some of them. India cannot stand aloof from the global changes, and it is our duty to take advantages of technology. At the same time all these can be possible by not sacrificing our basic values and culture. The Gandhian ideals are the most important method to address many issues in Indian polity. The concept of Ram Rajya still has its relevance. So in the twenty first century it is the duty of every Indian to rediscover Mahatma Gandhi in their approaches to strengthen Indian democracy.
References
1. Arya Bhushan Bharadwaj, “The Emerging Order For Regional Peace And International Security” at http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/Emerging%20order.htm
2. Mintzberg, Henry,Power in and Around Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983)
3. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)
4. Anto Akkara “Learn from Gandhi: Anti Globalisation activists urged” online at http://www.dfms.org/3577_26623_ENG_HTM.htm
5. M. K. Gandhi, Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1940 )
6. M. K. Gandhi, In Search of the Supreme, ed. and comp. V. B. Kher, 3 vols. (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1961), 2:17.
7. B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997)
[*] Dr. K.M.Sajad Ibrahim is Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram- 695581.
K.M.Sajad Ibrahim[*]
The Indian political system has been experiencing stresses and strains for the last few decades adversely affecting the life of majority people. In fact, the very fabrics of Indian concept of democracy and polity have lost its identity in the changed context, especially with the influence of globalization. Even the constitution of India failed to address many issues related to fundamental rights of equality and justice. In this context it is imperative to analyze the emerging trends in the Indian polity within the context of Gandhian perspective. Although the Indian Constitution paid a respect to Gandhian principles only in the part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy, Gandhian ethos can be seen in many parts of Indian Constitution, including the fundamental rights. Unfortunately, most of the Gandhian concepts mentioned even in the part IV of the Indian Constitution still remain only as an ‘ideals’ and not as a reality. It might be the reason for the erosion of values in Indian polity in the twenty first century.
Gandhiji was probably the political innovator of the century and, as such, his contribution deserves remembrance and reflection. Gandhiji put his trust in his culture and its ideals, describing himself as a practical idealist. Practical idealism was a manageable paradox to Gandhiji, not an oxymoron. In fact, Gandhiji strongly recommended his people to reject western ways to achieve independence. He had no faith that the national independence could solve the problems of Indian society. Political independence was seen as merely one fundamentally important step towards more “true” social order. It is to be remembered that Gandhiji advocated increased justice for all Indians, rather than the greatest good for the greatest number, as an utilitarianism. He wanted a core good for every one.
Gandhiji had a different perception regarding the concept of power. Real progress would require forceful use of political power and this could only be achieved by mobilizing the inherent strengths and will of the masses. Gandhiji asserted that this mobilization required tapping into the cultural strengths of Indian society in such way that it touched the lines of all. For example, the first two things to address on his list of Indian societal ills were discrimination against the untouchable caste and the subjugation of women. Gandhiji had so many facets: traditionalist, the religious innovator, the leader of Indian national liberation, the social reformer, the visionary, the revolutionary, the international human being and then, towards the end of his life , the secularist. Many Indians have recognized and understood only a few of these aspects: the traditional religious Gandhiji and Gandhiji as the leader of the freedom movement.
Gandhiji predicted in the second quarter of the twentieth century that industrial capitalism governing the world would leave humanity in a soulless mess. By the end of the century his prediction had been realized. Globalisation is the restructuring of colonization with far more dire consequences. It is the conversion of the vast sector of the human race, living mostly in the so-called third world, into a global market for exploitation by the neo-capitalists in the main, the G-8 nations. Central to Gandhiji’s economics is self-sufficiency. He opposed industrialization because he foresaw the excess it would lead to, nibbling away at the soul of man eventually leaving him soulless, without conscience or fellow feeling. He drew a parallel between urbanization and where the city exploited the village and colonization, where the country lived on the resources of another. His remedy in both instances is self-sufficiency, not dependency on foreign trade, or foreign investments. He saw the real planning was the best utilization of the whole manpower of India and the distribution of raw products of India in her numerous villages instead of sending them outside and repurchasing finished articles at fabulous prices. Unfortunately, the planning process in India failed to achieve the Gandhian vision and hence the Indian policy makers implemented planning mainly to attune the developmental activities directed by the global capitalism.
The problem of industrialization was its centralization of machines in factories. He supported decentralization and small communities where personal and values kept alive by interpersonal contact and guidance. Gandhiji saw India destroyed through industrialization. His sarvodaya was thus a confederation of small interdependent communities, each self-sufficient in itself and thus not beholden to the other.
In the Parliamentary democracy, as in practice world over, the political parties represent the individual. Only at the times of elections the voter has a role to play. After that the voter goes into hibernation, until the next elections, and the parties that decide what is good for him, which in real terms means what is good for them. Elections are expensive and marked by lavish propaganda, affordable only a party in command of money and muscle power. Criminalization of politics is a cause for concern as political parties are increasingly depending on this element for funds and votes. It is a matter of fact that party politics divide the society into so many groups. Evoking sentiments of religion, clan or ethnic identity creates vote banks. This has resulted in a society where various groups of people are perpetually in conflict vitiating the natural atmosphere of peace and freedom. The party leadership indulges in misuse of power and corruption in order to satisfy supporters inside and outside its own party. As such, the politicians lost credibility, especially in countries like India. Good and selfless person are still there, though in dwindling numbers. The time has come now to consider an alternative to the present system.
Gandhiji’s concept of gram swaraj (village self-government) envisages India as a “union of village republics”. Each of the 640,000 village panchayats or councils would be a self-sufficient autonomous unit with full political and economic power vested in it. Every individual will have direct voice in the government. The individual is the architect of his own government. A panchayat of persons possessing minimum prescribed qualifications and annually elected by adult villagers will conduct the government of the village. It will have all authority and jurisdiction. The panchayat will be the legislature, judiciary and executive rolled into one. Although Indian leaders like Nehru admired the kind of Gandhian gram swaraj, it was only in 1992 through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments a Gandhian dream was realized at least in a limited manner.
In spite of the implementation of the Panchayat Raj system, the Indian polity was not ready to accommodate the Gandhian vision in its policy perspectives. We are now interested only in adopting the western model of development since it is one of the criteria to secure aid form the advanced countries and world capitalism. It is a policy of violating Gandhian principles of self-sufficiency. A complete adoption of Gandhian principles is impractical due to the complex situation of the present world. But there are many areas in which Gandhain thinking can be incorporated especially in the matters of justice to poor, downtrodden, women and other weaker sections. Today majority of the people live in misery. Hungary, ignorance and disease still remains the major problems. All pervasive corruption, aggravated by the use of money and muscle power by the political parties to win elections, has been worsening the situation. The growing divide between the super rich and the downtrodden has given impetus to extremism. Terrorism stakes the country. People will erupt in violence if the state of affairs is allowed to continue. Gandhiji’s prescription can cure all the ills. The system needs to be overhauled and new leadership must take over the reigns of governance.
In the age of globalization the cultural identities and values generated by the great nations in their nation building process have to sacrifice them for the benefit of the most powerful countries of the world. The revolutions in the field technology, trade, education, etc. prompt the developing countries, including India to accept new changes to take advantage in the global competition. In this process, we sacrificed our basic concepts and beliefs. Now the Indian polity is in search of solutions to address issues confronted by the common man. The communal violence, caste violence, the violation of the rights of women and children, the environmental issues, the issues related to urbanization etc. are only some of them. India cannot stand aloof from the global changes, and it is our duty to take advantages of technology. At the same time all these can be possible by not sacrificing our basic values and culture. The Gandhian ideals are the most important method to address many issues in Indian polity. The concept of Ram Rajya still has its relevance. So in the twenty first century it is the duty of every Indian to rediscover Mahatma Gandhi in their approaches to strengthen Indian democracy.
References
1. Arya Bhushan Bharadwaj, “The Emerging Order For Regional Peace And International Security” at http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/Emerging%20order.htm
2. Mintzberg, Henry,Power in and Around Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1983)
3. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Hind Swaraj and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)
4. Anto Akkara “Learn from Gandhi: Anti Globalisation activists urged” online at http://www.dfms.org/3577_26623_ENG_HTM.htm
5. M. K. Gandhi, Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1940 )
6. M. K. Gandhi, In Search of the Supreme, ed. and comp. V. B. Kher, 3 vols. (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1961), 2:17.
7. B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1997)
[*] Dr. K.M.Sajad Ibrahim is Lecturer, Department of Political Science, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram- 695581.
Friday, August 04, 2006
6
Palestine Question since the Demise of the Soviet Union
The whole process of Palestinian struggle for the first time suffered a setback in 1990-91. The support extended by the PLO to Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 shifted the sprit of Palestinian struggle. When Kuwait was liberated from Iraq in 1991 by the US and its allies the whole situation in the Middle East dramatically altered in favour of Israel. The whole Arab world supported the US actions against Iraq and invited Washington mediation for a permanent peace in the Middle East. It was in 1991 the Soviet Union was disintegrated and its Republics declared its independence. Hence Russia took over the status of former Soviet Union. However, it was unable to occupy as a supper power. Hence the US remained as the sole supper power in the world. After the victory over Iraq in liberating Kuwait, the US successfully emerged as a sole power which can provide security for all Arab countries along with its status as a protector of Israeli interest. Such a situation continued in mid 2006 in many fronts as a power to determine the future of the Middle East. The peace process between the Palestinians and Israel since the Oslo accord was a mechanism to fulfill the US interest in the Middle East especially its oil interest as well as to support Israeli occupational policies. In the meantime, the PLO’s status gradually waned and its role was taken over by the extremist militant groups of Palestinians, especially Hamas. Russia remained only as an onlooker to all the events in the Middle East.
The Peace Process and the Emergence of Extremist Palestinian Groups
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 Saddam Hussein declared that Israel would be the next target. It created great enthusiasm among the Palestinians. The PLO leader Yasser Arafat openly declared his support to Iraqi action when majority of the Arab countries strongly condemned the invasion. It was a golden opportunity for the US to interfere in the Middle East. The immediate interference of the US was basically due to three reasons. Firstly to consolidate its oil interest in the region and restore uninterrupted oil supply to west; secondly, to take over the security of the Arab countries, especially the Gulf Sheikdoms; and finally, to protect the interest of Israel in a more effective manner.[1] The most important strategy of the US immediately after defeating Iraq was to exploit the feeling of insecurity created by Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So the US demanded the need for a permanent peace in the area. As a first step in this direction it mooted a peace conference to settle Arab hostility towards Israel. Since the Arab countries and the PLO were ready for any type of compromise, the US found it as a golden opportunity to strengthen its interest in the Middle East as there was no threat unlike in the past from the Soviet Union or any other power.
It was in this background Madrid Peace Conference was called in Madrid, Spain in October 1991. The meeting was attended by the US, Russia, European powers, Arab countries other than Israel and Palestinian representatives. It was the first conference in which Arab countries participated along with Israel. However, the Palestinians were not given any separate identity, rather as a part of Jordanian delegation. The PLO showed keen interest in this meeting as a chance to overcome the existing anti-western economic sanction. However, Hamas and some other extremist wings of Palestinians rejected such peace initiatives. They called all these peace attempts to weaken the struggle of Palestinian struggle for the liberation of homeland. Although PLO and Israel agreed for pace talks, many differences continued. [2]
The year 1992 marked the launching of suicide attacks by Hamas against Israel.[3] At the same time the clandestine meetings held between the PLO and Israel.[4] Now Israel took more positive attitude in talking with the PLO as extremist groups of Palestinians took a different path. It was during this period Labour Party under the leadership of Yitzhak Rabin won elections in Israel. The change of Israeli leadership was a breakthrough in the peace talks. Finally, it led to the signing of Oslo accord between the PLO and Israel on 13 September 1993. The most important features of this accord were the recognition of the State of Israel by the PLO and the self rule of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Jericho, the West Bank town. However, it envisaged a number stages ultimately leading to the formation of the state of Palestine.[5] While the Accord was widely appreciated as a historical step towards a permanent peace in the Middle East, it was condemned by extremist groups of Palestinians like Hamas, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Islamic Jihad etc.[6] It was also opposed by Iran some other Arab countries like Syria.[7]
A few days after the signing of Oslo accords, Arafat called on all the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories “to reject violence and terrorism and return to ordinary life”.[8] While the peace process was under going on violence increased in the occupied territories. On February 25, 1994, a disgruntled right-wing settler, Baruch Goldstein, opened fire on worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs (Ibrahimi mosque) in Hebron, killing 48 and injuring more than 300 Palestinians before being killed himself. It was the first shock in the post-Oslo accord period. Hamas immediately retaliated with six attacks, followed by a series of conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians.[9] It was during this period intifada was called off. Actually the movement was weakened after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Moreover, such a decision was taken under the influence of Hamas, which wanted to reorganize its strategy against Israel.
As a part of Oslo accord, Yasser Arafat landed in the Gaza Strip on 25 July 1994 to take over the Presidency of the Palestinian Authority (PA).[10] The commencement of the self-rule marked with the arrest of large number of followers of Hamas and other militant groups. It also marked the beginning of confrontation among different Palestinian groups. The self rule was confined to Gaza and the West bank town of Jericho.[11] Although the self rule created much enthusiasm among the Palestinians, it was only for a short period. The new administration was mainly focused on appeasing Israeli interest. It is for this purpose the Palestine National Authority (PNA) decided to contain Hamas and other non-PLO groups. It led to a series of violence and arrest, killing many Palestinians. In the meantime, Palestinian militant groups continued their attack on Israel. It provoked Israel to invade the Palestinian self-rule areas killing many people including women and children.
An important set back of the Oslo Peace process was the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel, on 24 November 1995 by Jewish extremist.[12] The murder was created much uncertainty in the peace process. Meanwhile, a peace talks was held on 18 December 1995 between PNA and Hamas to remove their differences.[13] The PNA leaders demanded Hamas to end jihad agitation against Israel and to participate in the forth coming election to the Palestinian legislature. However, Hamas rejected these demands. Hence the meeting was concluded without any result. Subsequently, Hamas intensified its attacks against Israel, in which Arafat and his authority were silent spectators. The assassination of Yahiya Ayash, an engineer and supporter of Hamas, by Israel in early 1996 worsened the situation.[14] To retaliate on the murder Hamas formed Yahiya Ayash Action, which triggered off a series of attacks against Israel killing 24 Jews and 35 Israeli soldiers. Followed by this Israel let loose a reign of terror against the Palestinians, the most horrified event in the post June war of 1967. However, Hamas defended these Israeli brutalities by killing another 64 Israelis.
In the meantime, PNA also took hard measures against Palestinian extremist groups by arresting a number of its followers. At the same time Hamas and similar groups continued their struggle without any compromise to the Palestinian authority led by Arafat. By the time Israel had to confront the attacks from many fronts led by different Palestinian groups as well as from Hezbollah organization. It culminated into Israeli attack on Lebanon in April 1996 in which more than 100 people were killed and a number of them were injured.[15] In fact, the civilian population including women and children were the victims of Israeli attack. The Israeli actions were condemned world wide. By the time an agreement was reached between Hezbollah and Israel on 27 April 1996 [16] Israel agreed to stall its attacks on civilian population in Lebanon and in return Hezbollah decided to end all attacks against Jews.
The victory of Likud party led by Benjamin Netanyahu in May 1996 further complicated the peace process.[17] The Likud party had many differences over the peace accord signed by Israel. Hence the victory of the Likud was viewed by many as an ominous sign to the Middle East Peace process which were already in derailed stage. The commencement of a Kotel tunnel construction by Israel in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in September 1996 led to a bloody war between the Palestinians and Jews.[18] It resulted in heavy casualties among Palestinians, 62 deaths and injury of more than 1600. By 1997 serious financial allegations were leveled against the PNA. It exposed the corrupt rule of the authority.[19] The ruling Fatah party was more confined to making financial advantages than showing any interest in the matters of Palestinians. It was during this period the popularity of Hamas increased at a tremendous level. The kind of social services provided by Hamas to the needy Palestinians were important factors for this. Moreover, the Palestinians were inspired by the armed struggle conducted by Hamas against Israel. It was for the first time Israel faced a strong resistance from a Palestinian group. In the past most of the Palestinian struggles were with cooperation of some Arab countries. This was also an important factor for the increasing popularity of Hamas.
The Wye River agreement under the mediation of the US in October 1998 brought about new life for the peace process.[20] However, the peace efforts did not bring any change in the Middle East situation. The election of Yahud Barak as the new Prime Minister of Israel in May 1999 was viewed with great expectation.[21] The defeat of Netanyahu was basically due to the poisoning of the atmosphere. In September 1999 an agreement was signed, known as Wye River II Agreement, between Israel and Palestinian authority.[22] As a part of establishing permanent peace Israel agreed to hand over the whole of West Bank to PNA. However, Israel insisted that the PNA should contain the activities of extremist wings. On the basis of this understanding PNA took several military and political measures against Hamas and similar groups.
The Camp David summit was held in July 2000 to accelerate peace process according to the terms of Oslo Accord.[23] In this summit both Palestinians and Israel agreed to end the conflict and achieve a just and lasting peace, accepting the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. While the Palestinians demanded full Palestinian sovereignty over all of West Bank and Gaza, Israel agreed to give 10 per cent more of the West Bank under indefinite Israeli control. However, differences continued on the issues of status of Jerusalem and the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return to their place. The Camp David 2000 also ended in failure. The visit by Ariel Sharon, then opposition leader of Israel, to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, marked the beginning of the second intifada.[24] In fact, the visit of Sharon was a move to provoke the Muslim population, which held the Mosque to be third holiest site in Islam. The action of the Sharon was also condemned world wide as a violation of the Oslo accord. The outbreak of the second intifada was also an expression of deep disappointment and frustration over the ongoing disrespect and denial of basic rights of the Palestinians caused by the occupation including the right to free access to Jerusalem, security and development and the refugees’ right to return. [25]
The Taba summit of January 2001 in Egypt was mainly to address those unresolved issues in the Camp David Summit of 2000.[26] An important feature of the summit was the discussion on the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. Although the summit ended with some satisfaction, it failed to make any impact in the stalled peace process. A new wave of confrontation between Israeli army and Palestinians started when the right wing Ariel Sharon assumed office as Prime Minister of Israel in March 2001.[27] Sharon wanted to eliminate all “terrorism”, a term used to describe the Palestinian factions, especially the Hamas and Islamic Jihad. During the course of its raids into the Occupied Territories, Israel arrested and killed leaders and supporters of the Palestinian resistance movements. However, Palestinian resistance against Israel continued unabated. Israel blamed Arafat and his Authority for all violence. The terror attack on the World Trade Centre in the US on 11 September 2001 had direct repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the one hand, Arab and Islamic countries tried to leverage on the need for their cooperation in the war against terror to win concessions for the Palestinians. On the other, many in the West tried to connect Hamas and Hezbollah with Al-Qaeda, especially in the light of the demonstrations held by Palestinians in favour of Bin Laden. However, the attempt to tarnish Hamas and similar Palestinian groups did not make any impact in the Palestinian movements or in the Middle East peace process. In the meantime, violent attack on Israel continued by the different Palestinian groups. In December 2001 Israel put Yasser Arafat under house arrest. Israel blamed Arafat for not curbing violent attacks against the Jews. During the remaining part of his life Arafat was a virtual prisoner under Israel. On 2 March 2002, 11 Jews in settlement area were killed and 40 injured when some Palestinian extremist groups attacked. Followed by this another Palestinian group killed 17 Jewish soldiers. In retaliation to these attacks Israel bombarded the office of Yasser Arafat and also dropped bombs in Gaza, Nabulaz, and Ramallah. Moreover, in a military attack Israel massacred 50 Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank.[28]
Another peace effort was made by Arab countries under the initiative of Saudi Arabia in March 2002.[29] While the Arab countries and many Palestinian groups including Hamas supported, it was rejected by Israel. According to Israel the plan threatened its security[30]. In the meantime, Israel continued the policy of suppression of Palestinian resistance. On 3 April 2002 Israel attacked the refugee camps in Jenin Town, north of West Bank and killed several Palestinians.[31] Almost all houses in these areas were crumbled and Israel did not permit any relief measures. The PNA and some Arab countries demanded the US for an international inquiry into these incidents. However, America declined such demand on 19April 2002. Another set back in the peace process was the decision of Israel in June 2002 to launch the construction of a great wall in West Bank for separating the Jewish settlement areas from the Palestinian population.[32] The new decision of Israel sent shock wave not only to the Arabs but also to the whole world. The wall was remarked as “apartheid wall”, as it mainly aimed at dividing the West Bank into two on the basis of religion and race. In fact, the construction of such a wall would separate many villages along with the destruction of houses and agricultural lands of large number of Palestinians. It was called as flagrant violation of the Oslo accord and other peace treaties. However, the US defended Israeli policies in the name of security.
During late 2002 and early 2003 a series of confrontation took place mainly between Hamas and Israel in which many Jews were killed. It was during this period Israel decided to change its strategy in dealing with Hamas threat. The notable decision was to assassinate the leaders of Hamas and thereby eliminate such Palestinian organizations which threaten the security of Israel.[33] The first victim of the Israeli new policy was Ibrahim Ahamed Haled Makadme, one of the founding leaders of Hamas. He was killed on 8 March 2003 by an Israeli Defense Force helicopter operation.[34] It was during this period the US and its allies invaded Iraq and ousted Saddam Hussein from power. In fact, the presence of America in the region inspired Israel to continue its oppressive measures against the Palestinians.
Another peace proposal was introduced known as “Road Map” on 1 May 2003. The initiative came from “Quartet”, a group consists of the UN, the European Union, Russia, and the US. The three-phase plan envisioned a comprehensive peace agreement and Palestinian statehood by 2005.[35] One of the major demands in the proposals is to freeze on building Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where more than 200,000 settlers live. But Israel made its reservations and stresses by stating that such proposals depended on the Palestinians’ “halting violence”, referring to violent attacks and suicide bombings. Moreover, Israel rejected the Palestinian demand for the “right of return” of the Palestinians who fled from their homes during Arab-Israeli confrontation. The demand to dismantle illegal settlement posts was also unacceptable for Israel. The Palestinian extremists including Hamas and Islamic Jihad also rejected the proposal. In spite of the great efforts made by Quartet, the peace proposal also failed to bring any radical shift in the existing situation in the Middle East.
In August-September 2003 Israel continued its attack on Palestinians and many Palestinian leaders, especially from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were killed. It was in October 2003 another peace proposal introduced. The Draft Permanent Status Agreement, better known as the Geneva Accord or Geneva Initiative, is an extra-governmental and therefore unofficial peace proposal meant to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[36] It would give Palestinians almost all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and part of Jerusalem, drawing Israel's borders close to what existed before the 1967 war. In return for removing most of the Israeli settlements in those areas, the Palestinians would limit their "right of return" to Israel to a number specified by Israel and will drop all other claims and demands from Israel. The Accord was officially launched on December 1, 2003 at a ceremony in Geneva. Amongst its creators are Israeli politician Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the Oslo accords, and former Palestinian Authority minister Yasser Abed Rabbo. The significant feature of the Accord was to replace the Oslo Accord as the basis for the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. In fact, the most unacceptable part of the accord for the Palestinian extremists was “Palestinians give up Right of Return of Palestinian refugees”.[37] Anyway, the text had not been released and the document was not signed.
When the peace attempts were going on Israel continued its policy of attacking the Palestinian leaders. On 23 March 2004 Ahmed Yassin, the founder and the spiritual leader of Hamas, and his six body guards were murdered in cold blood.[38] Even though a physically handicapped, Ahamed Yassin had played a crucial role in moulding a Palestinian organization on the basis of solid principles. So his death was a heavy loss for the Palestinians. The event was marked with a series of protest rallies against Israel in the Middle East region. A decision to condemn the Israeli action was vetoed by the US in the UN Security Council. While the Israli policy of barbarism was debating Dr.Abdul Aziz Rantiziz , the second leader after Ahamed Yassin was also assassinated on 17 April 2004. It was followed by an Israeli invasion of the town of bait Lahiya in Gaza killing 13 Palestinians. Through out the Gaza Strip, they fired upon demonstrators protesting the assassination of Rantisi.[39] In fact, such cruel tactics of Israel resulted only in undermining the peace process.
The death of Yasser Arafat on 11 November 2004, marked the end of an era in the Palestinian struggle for a homeland. Arafat was suffering from many health problems.[40] Moreover, he was virtually under house arrest for about three years. The position of Yasser Arafat as an undisputed leader of the Palestinians was gradually waning since the Iraqi invasion in 1990. His death was a great loss for the Palestinians and Arab world. Mahmoud Abbas was elected as the successor of Yasser Arafat in the Presidential election held on 9 January 2005.[41] The Palestinians expected a meaningful role from the new President. However, he showed more interest in appeasing the US policies. Hence he called for ending violence against Israel. Abbas wanted the US mediation for the settlement of the Palestine question. It was for this purpose he visited the US in May 2005.[42] During the negotiations the US promised $50 million to the PNA and demanded Abbas to crackdown all terrorist activities.
In June 2005 the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Palestinian and Israeli leaders to ensure the coordination of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.[43] Followed by this Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon and the PNA President Mahmoud Abbas met in Jerusalem on 21 June. The major outcome of the meeting was the announcement of Sharon that he had attained Palestinian consent to coordination of the Gaza pullout.[44] Finally, Israel evacuation of Jewish settlements began in the Gaza Strip on 15 August and was completed on 24 August. It was a unilateral decision of Israel which has many implications.[45] Both Palestinian and Israeli security forces were on high alert to secure the evacuation of 9000 illegal Jewish settlers from 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip since the Israeli extremists had threatened the process. [46]
However, the evacuation of Israeli settlements in Gaza was generally viewed as a high drama to appease the interest of Quartet groups to implement the Road Map peace proposal. Even after the evacuation of their settlements, Israel continued its illegal control over all of Gaza and West Bank area. Hence it was generally viewed as a smokescreen, allowing Israel to continue dominating the Palestinian people.[47] In fact, the “withdrawal” is unilateral, because, on the surface, it provided an opportunity for the US and its supporters to claim progress in the process. Moreover, for Sharon it was to portray himself as a peacemaker while he strengthened his grip on Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. Now Palestinians were expected to reciprocate – make some concession in response to – this “withdrawal”. The Israel action was not based on any negotiation settlement, but to show the “sincere attitude” in the peace negotiations.
As a reward to the Israeli action in Gaza, Ariel Sharon was invited to address the UN General Assembly on 15 September 2005 under the influence of the US. In his address, Sharon recognized the rights of the Palestinians for an independent State. He said, “the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel does not mean disregarding the rights of others in the Land. The Palestinians will always be our neighbours. We respect them, and have no aspirations to rule over them. They are also entitled to freedom and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own.” At the same time Sharon reiterated Israeli claim of sovereignty over Jerusalem, which is not recognized by the UN.[48]
In the Local Body elections held in October 2005 Fatah won 55 seats and 24 by Hamas. It was for the first time Hamas was participating in the elections. In fact, the achievement of Hamas was a setback for the Fatah Party. It also led to some clashes between the followers of Hamas and Fatah killing three people. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke on 4 January 2006 leading to a leadership change in Israel. It was again a set back for the peace process since the evacuation of Jewish settlements in Gaza. The power of Sharon was transferred to his deputy and Finance Minister, Ehud Olmert. Although Olmert formed a more centrist party, Kadima, by leaving the right wing Likud Party in November, he had a close association with Sharon.
The election for the Palestinian National Legislature on 26 January 2006 was a turning point in the Middle East as Hamas won the majority of seats by defeating its arch rival Fatah. When Hamas secured 74 seats Fatah had to satisfy with 45 seats in the 132 member Legislature. In fact, the victory of Hamas sent shock waves to Israel and its allies, the US and the West. The movements that had led the Palestinians for 40 years, Fatah and the PLO, lost all its status as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Under the Palestinian constitution, Mahmoud Abbas, a member of Fatah, remained President with broad powers. In the meantime, the US and European powers decided to freeze all financial aids to PNA until Hamas agreed to disarm and recognize the state of Israel. While responding to this action one Khalid Mish’al, the Head of political bureau of Hamas said:
Our message to the US and EU governments is this: your attempt to force us to give up our principles or our struggle is in vain. Our people who gave thousands of martyrs, the millions of refugees who have waited for nearly 60 years to return home and our 9000 political and war prisoners in Israeli jails have not made those sacrifices in order to settle for close to nothing.[49]
At the same time Hamas vowed not to recognize Israel as long as it continues its occupation of Palestinian territories. The demand of Hamas was that Israel should withdraw at least from the places it occupied since June war of 1967 i.e. all of West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. Further, Hamas also demand the recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. In the meantime, Hamas led government was sworn in on 29 March 2006. The Fatah refused to join the coalition since Hamas was not ready recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and thereby dishonoring the many peace agreements including the Oslo accord.[50] Meanwhile, Kadima party under the leadership of Ehud Olmert came to power on the basis of Israeli Parliamentary held on 28 March 2006. It also marked the end of Likud party rule in Israel.
The beginning of the Hamas rule was not smooth as new developments took place especially the financial crisis imposed by the West. A number of differences emerged between President Abbas and Hamas regarding the peace proposals with Israel. While Abbas was trying to continue his policy of appeasing the US mediation, Hamas refused to give its consent. Moreover, Hamas also rejected the demand of Abbas to renounce violence[51]. Another important area of dispute was regarding the control of Palestinian security forces. President Abbas was not ready to allow the Hamas control over the security forces. Hence the Hamas formed its own security wing. Meanwhile, in order to contain the policy of Hamas, President declared for a referendum to be held in July end regarding the formation of a Palestinian state along side Israel, recognizing the existence of the Jewish state. However, Hamas rejected the referendum order of the President.[52] It was followed by the fighting between the loyalist of Abbas and Hamas in Gaza.
The proposed referendum was based on a document dubbed “National Accordance” refers to a proposal reached early June by prominent Palestinians from several factions including Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who were jailed in an Israeli prison. The proposal supported resistance against the Israeli occupation as well as a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It also called for the formation of a Palestinian national unity government, demanding Israel to withdraw to borders of the 1967 war and called for a independent Palestine with Jerusalem as capital and a just a solution to the issue of the Palestinian refugees. The call for a referendum by Abbas was an unexpected move to many. In fact, the Palestinian factions were engaged in Talks designed to defuse tensions between rival Hamas and Fatah over the security control in the Gaza Strip. Moreover, the financial sanctions imposed on PNA by the US and its allies made severe crisis in the affairs of the Palestinians.[53]
The peace process suffered further set back with the assumption Israeli artillery attack on Gaza in June 2006 killing seven Palestinians. As retaliation to this Hamas fired rockets at Israel by calling off its 16 month old truce declared in February 2005. By the end of June 2006 Israeli military entered in southern Gaza Strip to release one of its soldiers who was kidnapped by the Palestinian militants. It was estimated that more than 40 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier had been killed since Israel launched its operation in Gaza.[54]While dealing with the situation Israel faced another threat from Hezbollah. As retaliation to the kidnapping of its two soldiers by Hezbollah on 12 July, Israel launched a series of attack on south Lebanon.[55] The attack wreaked havoc on east and south Lebanon, killing about 200 and injuring over 200 civilians and extensive material damage including bridges, roads etc. In fact, Hezbollah openly challenged Israeli policy and counter attacked by firing rockets inside Israel.[56] It was for the first time Israel face this kind of attack form Hezbollah. The main demand of Hezbollah was to set free hundreds of Palestinians from the Israeli jails.[57] As the violence continues in between Israel on the one side and Hezbollah and other Palestinian militants on the other side in the end of July, the peace process was stalled indefinitely.
The Policy Perspectives of Russia towards Palestinian Affairs
At the very out set Russia followed a passive attitude towards the affairs in the Middle East. This was evident in the Kuwait crisis and subsequent events in which the US and its allies made considerable influence in the region. The President of Russia Boris Yelstin took a pro-western approach in the foreign policy decisions. Moreover, Russia was not in position to make any attention in the international affairs due to the internal crisis. The situation of Russia was well realized by the Palestinian organizations especially the PLO. It was one of the reasons for the PLO to agree to the peace formula initiated by the US since Russia was not ready to counter it. Russia as a successor of the Soviet Union was not in a position to challenge the authority of the US and its allies. The normal diplomatic relation with Israel was resumed by the Soviet Union just before its disintegration in 1991 as a part of getting the recognition as a mediator in the Middle East Peace Conference. Moreover the Soviet Union lifted the emigration ban, for enabling the large scale Jews to settle in Israel. This migration from Russia not only strengthened Israel, but also made Israel into country with largest Russian speaking Diaspora outside the former Soviet Union.[58]
The early Russian response to the events in the Middle East was confined to statements of Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry. Russia also showed interest in participating in the Middle East peace conferences especially in Madrid and Oslo during 1991-1993. The decision or Russia to open the Israeli embassy in Moscow on 24 October 1991 was viewed as a step to qualify for the cosponsor of the Middle East peace conference along with America. At the same time Russia also wanted to remove all the obstacles in improving its relations with Israel. Moreover, Russia actively participated in the Middle East conferences to save its image as the successor of the USSR. The PLO and other Palestinian groups were totally disappointed with the role of Russia.
Moscow viewed the development of Palestinian self-rule in 1994 as a major historic step towards the realization of the Palestinian people’s legitimate right to the self-determination, which envisaged the establishment of its own state.[59] Russia's first President, Boris Yeltsin, while reducing Russia's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, continued to support the Palestinian Authority, for instance, sending 50 armored personnel carriers to the Authority in 1994.[60] The Russian attitude towards the Middle East gradually under went a change when Yevgeny Primakov became the Foreign Minister in January 1996. Primakov, an old Soviet Middle East specialist, was expected to put his personal imprint on Russian policy towards the Middle East, as well as do a better job in coordinating Russian foreign policy than his predecessor, Andrei Kozrev. After Primakov took over as Foreign Minister, Russia became far more critical of Israeli activities, whether in Lebanon when Shimon Pares was the Prime Minister, or towards the Palestinians after Netanyahu took office. As the Palestinian-Israeli peace process derailed under Netanyahu, Primakov wanted Russia to assume the role of a mediator in the crisis especially to gain the world recognition. It provided an opportunity for the Arabs to turn towards Russia for a peace formula than depending on the US. [61]
At the same time Russia continued its policy in favour of Israel. For instance, the Russian Ambassador in Cairo stated his country’s opposition to any nasty decision of declaring an independent state of Palestine. According him rushing the declaration without proper negotiations could threaten the peace process, the Madrid and Oslo pacts. In the meantime, Yasser Arafat received a communiqué from Russian President Boris Yeltsin about the outcome of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak in Moscow. It basically mentioned about the importance of the reviving the peace process as per the peace accords including the Wye river.[62]
The Russian attitude towards the Palestinians further improved when Vladimir Putin became the President in 2000. It was found in the Putin-Arafat summit in November 2000. The peace proposal announced by Putin during his meeting with Arafat was widely welcomed. The proposal includes three stages: firstly, sending of international observers to the conflict zone after the ensuring peace in the region; secondly, Israeli armed forces should be removed from the Palestinian territories and blockade should be lifted from these territories; and thirdly, a final peace negotiations should be held after deciding the President of the new state by the US. In fact, the new proposals were the part of Russia’s interest to actively interfere in the Middle East peace process more than a cosponsor with the US.[63]
A joint statement issued by the US President George Bush and Russian President Putin states:
The United States of America and the Russian Federation as co-sponsors of the Middle East peace process, we believe that there is an opportunity to move away from the current unacceptable situation of terror and violence towards a resumption of meaningful negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We are agreed that we have to move aggressively to help the parties take advantage of this opportunity. In the Middle East, neither conflict nor peace is inevitable. Peace will not come to the Middle East on its own. We must do all we can for the attainment of peace.
In that spirit, the United States and Russia pledge their maximum efforts to realize the vision of a negotiated settlement, including two states, Israel and Palestine, living in peace and security within recognized borders. This should become part of a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Madrid principles, and the principle of land for peace, and existing agreements and understandings. We share these approaches, which were reflected in UN Security Council resolution 1397.[64]
Moreover, the communiqué condemned the terrorist activities in the Middle East region and called for respecting the peace accords proposals. It also reaffirmed the commitment of Quartet to undertake all efforts to help Israel and Palestinian authority to achieve their goals.
The Russian President paid a historic visit to Israel and Palestinian occupied territories in April 2005. It was a first by a Kremlin leader to Israel and its Occupied Territories. In fact, the most important aim of Putin was to explore the possibility of conducting a Middle East peace conference in Moscow. But he dropped that idea as he received poor response from Israel. While visiting the Palestinian leaders Putin pledged to provide the new Palestinian leadership with helicopters and other equipments and training to help to maintain order once Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. However, the visit of Putin saw no breakthrough in the existing situation. At the same time he was able to strengthen his ties Israel along with rekindling friendship with Arab leaders. [65]
When Hamas made a surprise victory in the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 Russia was one of the few countries which supported it. In fact, the Russian decision to back the Hamas government was against the interest of the US and its Western allies. According to Russia if Hamas representatives were included in the PNA it could stick to the principles of the ‘Road Map’ of the Middle East peace conference.[66] The invitation extended to Hamas to visit Moscow in March was another significant step taken by Russia. It was on the basis of its declared policy of not considering Hamas as a terrorist organization. It was another set for the US and Israel since they were making all efforts to isolate Hamas. But Russia defended its decision by saying that it was only for pursuing Hamas to temper its policies and renounce violence. It was in this meeting Hamas expressed its willingness to temporarily halt all armed struggle against Israel if it recognizes the “1967 borders”. At the same time Hamas rejected the peace proposals of the “Quartet- Road map” since nobody including Israel favoured it.[67]
The general perception about the new actions was that Russia wanted to exert its influence in the Middle East especially since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Another important argument was that recognition of Hamas by Russia was the desire of Putin to steer away from the western–oriented policy of his predecessors.[68] Moreover Russia stated that it would be wrong to halt aid to Palestinians while criticizing the policies of the West. While considering the humanitarian aspects, Russia declared emergency aid of $10 million to the PNA.[69] Finally, on the basis of Russian influence the US and its allies decided to create a ‘fund’ in May 2006 to help the starving Palestinians directly without reaching into the hands of the Hamas government. The policy was criticized by Hamas saying it was the part of the west to divide the Palestinians.[70]
The most recent attitude of Russia towards the Palestine question was not fully following a balancing between Arabs and Israel rather, it had a soft corner towards the Israel. Although Russia wanted to exert its influence in the area as an alternative to the US hegemony, it was not ready to take an offensive stand against the US. This was evident from the Russian response towards the decision of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s idea of holding a referendum on establishing a Palestinian state along side Israel. At the very outset Russia supported this move along with the US. Even though Russia took a policy of not isolating Hamas, it demanded Hamas to recognize the state of Israel.[71] The case of Jewish emigrants from Russia also influences Moscow while dealing with the Middle East situation. Although Russia put forward many peace proposals to woo the Arabs, it was not ready to condemn the Israeli aggressive policy. Even when the ideology was considered as a major parameter for determining foreign policy, the Soviet Union neglected it towards the Palestine question, especially on crucial occasions, the present Russia without any ideology was not expected to support the Palestinian cause. Hence the attitude of Russia towards the Palestinians was viewed only for countering the US hegemony. Unfortunately the present Russia is not in a position to question the US policy decisions.
In the post-Soviet disintegration period the situation in the Middle East had been transformed into different direction in the name of creating permanent peace. The Palestinians were the first victim in this process since they gained nothing except the self-rule in the Gaza Strip and some parts of West Bank. Even the self rule was based on the mercy of Israel and the US. On other hand, there had been tremendous increase of popular protest against the Israeli occupational policy of permitting large scale Jewish immigrants to the Palestinian majority areas. The Oslo peace accord and the subsequent peace treaties were only to undermine the Palestinian movements. Even the Palestinian movements assumed more violent and radical due to the frustration and humiliation imposed by the Israel and its partners. Israel still not ready to agree to the basic rights of the Palestinians viz. the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a safe passage between Gaza Strip and the West bank, Israeli troop withdrawal for the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem, releasing of thousands of Palestinians from Israeli jails etc. Finally, the US and Israel were able to create rifts in Palestinian movements especially between Fatah and Hamas. This was an obsolete British imperialist policy of divide and rule. The intention of conducting a referendum among Palestinians to recognize Israel was another tactic move to weaken the Hamas and other extremist factions. Even if the referendum is approved, the struggle carried by different Palestinians would continue for the just cause.
End Notes
[1] See the White House statement at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd_45.htm. retrieved on 10-06-2006.
[2]“Israel 1991 to Present Madrid 1991” at http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_madrid_desc.php retrieved on 12-06-2006.
[3] See the details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks#1994 retrieved on 10-06-2006.
4.The details of such meeting can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process#Madrid_and_Oslo_.281991-93.29 retrieved on 14-06-2006.
[5]See the details of the Oslo Accord at http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_oslo_accords.php; and also see “The Oslo Accord of 1993”, at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index--b.html retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[6] See http://www.answers.com/topic/oslo-accords; and also see John Cherian, “The Rise of Hamas”, Frontline (Chennai), Vol.23, January 28- February 10, 2006
[7] Foreign Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards Israel, 1979-2002 http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2003_files/no_1/article/3a.htm retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[8] Clare Fermont, “Book watch: Palestine and the Middle East Peace Process”, International Socialism, Issue 72, September 1996 at http://www.linksruck.de/nahost/artikel/isj72%20isr.htm retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[9] See “Israel and Palestine : A Brief History” at http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm; also see “Special News Bullettin in Palestine &Bosnia dated February 28th, 1994” at http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9402d&L=muslims&T=0&O=D&P=239 retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[10] “1994: Yasser Arafat Ends 27-year Exile” http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/july/1/newsid_2489000/2489631.stm retrieved on 16-07-2006.
[11] “History in Dates about Occupying Palestine”, at http://www.paltoday.com/english/news.php?id=24381 retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[12] “Assassination of Israeli Prime Minister” at http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/2636-00.asp retrieved on 17-06-2006.
[13] Controlled Violence and the Oslo Accord at http://ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=11 retrieved on 15-06-2006.
[14] Steven R.David, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy of Targeted Killing” at http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/david.pdf retrieved on 18-06-2006.
[15] “The Israeli Massacre of Civilians at Quna” at http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine12.html retrieved on 18-06-2006.
[16] “Lebanon” at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon.htm retrieved on 18-06-2006.
[17] “Netanyahu unseats Peres in Israeli election” at http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9605/31/netanyahu.wins/update.one/index.html retrieved on 18-06-2006.
[18] “What was the Kotel Tunnel incident at the Western Wall in 1996?” at http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_kotel_tunnel_1996.php retrieved on 21-06-2006.
[19] Murray Kahl, “Corruption within the Palestinian Authority”, October 30, 1997 at http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/corruption.html retrieved on 21-06-2006.
[20] For the details of the Wye River Agreement see at http://www.mideastweb.org/mewye.htm also see “Selected Documents Regarding Palestine: The Wye River Memorandum” at http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/river.html retrieved on 21-06-2006.
[21] Priya Singh, Foreign Policy Making in Israel Domestic Influences: Reflections on the Middle East Peace Process ( Delhi: Shipra Publications, 2005),p.226.
[22] See the details “Wye 2 Agreement Paves for Restructuring Economic Relations in Middle East”, at http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/isra-s16.shtml retrieved on 21-06-2006.
[23] For the details see “The Middle East Crisis: Camp David, the ‘Al-Aqsa Intifada’ and the Prospects for the Peace Process”,at http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-009.pdf ; also see “Camp David 2000 Summit” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit retrieved on 21-06-2006.
[24] “One Year Al-Aqsa Intifada Fact Sheets and Figures” The Palestinian Human Rights Monitor at http://www.phrmg.org/monitor2001/oct2001-introduction.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[25] “The Second Intifada: A Palestinian Perspective” at http://www.aloufok.net/article.php3?id_article=610 retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[26] “The Taba Talks, 2001”, at http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/taba2001.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[27] “Ariel Sharon: israel’s New Prime Minister_- A Biography”, at http://fletcher.tufts.edu/mgep/archive/pdf/2005-2006/ArielSharonBiography.pdf retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[28] See “History of the Middle East Database” at http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/intifada_2000.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[29] For the details see “The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002”at
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[30] “Saudi peace Plan” at http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Palestine/PeaceProposals/SaudiPeacePlan/tabid/236/Default.aspx retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[31] “The Jenin Refugee Camp Massacre (March 29-April 13, 2002) at http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/jenin_refugee_camp_massacre.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[32] “Israeli Apartheid Separation Wall” at http://www.palestinehistory.com/wall.htm ; and for the details of the expanded plan of 2004 see “Palestinians under the New Israeli Disengagement Plan” at http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/op-edfactsheet4.pdf retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[33] Gal Luft, “The Logic of Israel’s Targeted Killing”, The Middle East Quarterly Vol.X, No.1, Winter 2003, cited at http://www.meforum.org/article/515 retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[34] “Senior Hamas Leader Killed in IDF Operation” at http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2003/Senior+Hamas+Leader+Killed+in+IDF+Operation+-+Mar.htm?DisplayMode=print retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[35] Vikram Sura , “Quartet Outlines Road Map toeards Peace in the Middle East while Violence
Continues”, United Nations Chronicle on Line Edition at http://un.orz/pubs/chronicle2002/issue4/0402cont.htm retrieved on 23-06-2006.
[36] For the details see “The Geneva Accord” at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5019.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[37] “Geneva Accord (Beilin-Abd-Rabbo Document)” at http://www.mideastweb.org/geneva1.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[38] “Sharon Ordered and Monitored Assassination of Shaikh Yassin, Hamas Spiritual Leader, who Said Three Hours Earlier ‘We Seek Martyrdom’” at http://www.aljazeerah.info/Special%20Reports/Shaikh%20Ahmed%20Yassin retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[39] “Palestine: What Israel Wants”, Green Left Weekly Online at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/580/580p17.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[40] “Yasser Arafat (1929-2004)”, Socialist World at http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2004/11/11arafat.html retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[41] “Abbas Wins Election”, at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DB17EF45-F488-4D20-8768-EB86E4FB33A2.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[42] “President Welcomes Palestinian President Abbas to the White House” at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[43] “Rice in Talks with Palestinian Leaders” at http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4029.shtml retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[44] “Israel and Palestine: A Brief History” at http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[45] Aijaz Ahmad, “The ‘Withdrawal’ Hoax in Gaza”, Frontline Vol22, Issue.18, August 27-September 10, 2005 at http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2218/stories/20050909005312800.htm retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[46] Atul Aneja “Israel Begins Historic Pull-Out” The Hindu (Thiruvananthapuram), 16 August 2005
[47] Josie Appleton, “After Gaza”, http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD00.htm retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[48] Full text of Ariel Sharon Speech in the UN General Assembly September 15, 2005 see http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/4f35dda0969b398885256c940075d006/06466c4853fadc238525709d00666a67!OpenDocument retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[49] Cited in Khalid Mish’al, ‘Hamas Ready for a Just Peace” The Hindu, 1 February 2006.
[50] Elias Akleh, “Hamas. To Be or Not to Be” at http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2006/mar/mar27-0.html retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[51] “Abbas Urges Hamas to Renounce Violence” at http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=31822 retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[52] “Hamas Rejects Abbas’ Call for Referendum” at http://russian.china.org.cn/english/international/171005.htm retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[53] “Aid and the Palestine Financial Crisis: A viewpoint on an ongoing debate” http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4673.shtml retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[54] “41 Dead as Israel Pounds Gaza” at http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=13578&TagID=2 also see The Times of India(Mumbai), 28 June 2006 and 23 June 2006. retrieved on 29-06-2006.
[55] See the details “Israel Attacks Lebanon (12 July 2006) at http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/445.shtml retrieved on 20-07-2006.
[56] Atul Aneja, “Hizbollah Offers Stiff Resistance to Israel”, The Hindu, 21 July 2006.
[57] “Palestinian Groups Demand Israel Release of 1,000 Prisoners’ at https://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7463&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 retrieved on 20-07-2006.
[58] Shalomo Avineri, Israel-Russia Relations, cited in http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=659 retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[59] “Letter from Dr. Nasser Al-Kidwa, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N., and Ambassador Sergey V. Lavrov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the U.N., to the Secretary-General of the United Nations” at
http://www.palestine-un.org/mission/2e_rus.htm retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[60] Molly Moore, "Putin Calls Arms Aid No Threat to Israel,” The Washington Post, April 30, 2005.
[61]Rober O.Freedman, “Russia and the Middle East: The Primakov Era”, MERIA Journal, Vol.2, No.2, May 1998, cited at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1998/issue2/jv2n2a1.html retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[62]“Russian ambassador: Russia calls for delaying declaration of Palestinian state” at http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990322/1999032255.html retrieved on 25-06-2006.
[63]“Palestinian Ambassador Applauds Russian Peace Proposals” Peoples Daily, Novemeber 29, 2000, cited in http://english.people.com.cn/english/200011/29/eng20001129_56469.html retrieved on 24-06-2006.
[64]“The President’s Trip to Europe and Russia”at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524-4.html retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[65]“Putin Pledges Aids to Palestinians” at http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2005%20News%20Archives/April%202005%20News/30%20n/Putin%20Pledges%20Aid%20to%20Palestinians.htm retrieved on 16-06-2006.
[66]“Russia Ready to Cooperate With Palestinian Islamist Govt. — Envoy” at http://www.mosnews.com/interview/2006/01/26/pnaelections.shtml retrieved on 26-06-2006.
[67]“Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict retrieved on 03-07-2006.
[68]“Russia: What Is Moscow Expecting From Hamas Visit?” at http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-54-24.cfm retrieved on 03-07-2006.
[69]“Russian, Palestinian leaders set to talk peace process, aid” at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060515/48105388.html retrieved on 03-07-2006.
[70]“US, UN, EU, Russia Agree On Palestinian Aid Plan” at http://www.beurs.nl/nieuws/artikel.php?id=133956&taal=US retrieved on 29-06-2006.
[71]“Russia backs referendum on establishing Palestinian state alongside Israel” at http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/09-06-2006/81819-referendum-0 retrieved on 29-06-2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)