A Zionist Recipe For India
By Praful Bidwai
The News International
22 May , 2003If the Vajpayee government wanted to court intense domestic
unpopularity on a foreign policy issue, it could not have tried
harder than it did by proposing a "core" alliance to fight
"international terrorism", centred on India, Israel and the United
States. It has followed this extraordinarily ill-advised move with an
invitation to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to visit India in
the second week of June.On May 8, India's National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra addressed the 97th annual dinner meeting of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in Washington. Present were several US Congressmen-and Spanish prime minister Aznar, who closely competes with Tony Blair in demonstrating a servile form of loyalty to Bush.
Mishra spoke in "admiration" of the Zionist AJC's "pioneering work" and in "celebration" of the "the alliance of free societies involved in combating this scourge [terrorism]. The US, India and Israel ... face the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism." He said: "A core, consisting of democratic societies", must emerge, "which can take on international terrorism in a holistic and focused manner ... [to] ensure that the global campaign against terrorism is pursued to its logical conclusion, and does not run out of steam, because of other preoccupations..."
The US-Israel-India "triad" would form the core of such a
"democratic" alliance, which would have "the political will and moral authority to take bold decisions ... and would not get bogged down in definitional and casual arguments." Mishra underscored the close and growing relations between the three states, which have some "fundamental similarities": "We are all democracies, sharing ... pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity. Stronger India-US relations and India-Israel relations have a natural logic." This expands on Vajpayee's description of India and the US as "natural allies".Mishra attacked what he called "diversionary arguments", in
particular the "motivatedly propagated" fallacy "that terrorism can
only be eradicated by addressing its 'root causes'. This is
nonsense." This articulates the Israeli government's well-known
approach, which disconnects "terrorism" from the occupation of
Palestinian territory, and uses purely military means.Mishra's AJC speech comes on top of growing Indo-Israel
political-military contacts since the two established full-scale
diplomatic relations in 1992, and especially under Bharatiya Janata Party rule in the late 1990s. In 1999, Mishra visited Israel and met Ehud Barak. Next year, home minister LK Advani and foreign minister Jaswant Singh visited Israel. Israel and India have since "cooperated" in intelligence-sharing and "counter-insurgency" operations.India has become a major buyer of Israeli armaments. It has been
trying to purchase the "Arrow" anti-missile system in whose
development SY Coleman, a firm headed by Lt Gen Jay Garner (yes, of Iraq fame!), was critically involved.The pro-BJP non-resident Indian lobby in the US works closely with the AJC-the single most powerful advocacy group in America, with connections in the Pentagon, the defence industry, Capitol Hill and the State Department. It helped the NRIs build the Congressional India Caucus, with as many as 160 members-"perhaps the largest single-country" group in the House. This link, more than the arms deals, explains the ardour with which the Vajpayee government is embracing Likud-ruled Israel.
In some respects, the "triad" proposal marks a qualitative jump over the past. It could not have come at a worse time so far as Indian public opinion goes. This is strongly opposed to Israel's occupation and brutal repression of Palestinians. Indians are not anti-Semitic, but they are critical of Israel and support the cause of Palestinian statehood. For them, Yasser Arafat of the pre-Oslo Accords period was something of a hero.
The Indian public is appalled at the "triad" proposal's timing, which coincides with the launching of a major US offensive in West Asia. Globally, Israel today is more isolated than ever before. It is doubtful if any European Union member would want to invite Sharon after his rejection even of the "Road Map" to a settlement of the Palestine-Israel conflict, first proposed by Bush last June.
This document, since revised and published by the state department, is remarkably partial to Israel and imposes harsh obligations upon the Palestinians, including an "immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end ... all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere." But in the first phase, it only asks Israel to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001 and freeze settlement activity. Israel's opposition has impelled even PA moderates such as Saeb Erekat to resign.
The "Road Map" follows the collapse of the Oslo Accords thanks to Israeli intransigence and the Palestinian people's resistance-despite the Arafat leadership's willingness to implement them. But like Oslo, the "Road Map" envisages "a final settlement" which will give nominal statehood to Palestine, but subordinate it politically, economically and militarily to Israel through a Bantustan-type solution.
Israel would control "security" (ie militarily dominate occupied
territories and all entry and exit points), water, and movement of
people. Palestine won't have an independent army, nor even contiguous territory. Israel won't have to own up its horrific culpability for the pillage of Palestinian land and property, nor for the post-1967 illegal occupation.This solution mocks at any notion of a just and honourable peace. To force it through, the US must "discipline" Syria and Iran (now that Iraq has fallen), and divide and coerce the PA's leadership. It is already moving in that direction by threatening Syria and foisting Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen) on the PA to counter Arafat. Sharon has not only met Abu Mazen, he has decided to spurn leaders who do business with Arafat.
Most Indian political parties will strongly oppose inviting Sharon.
The Congress has condemned the "triad" proposal as "strange and perverse", and as arising from the BJP's "obsession" with Israel: "It shows [the BJP's] intellectual insolvency ..." It has also stressed India's commitment to the Palestinian cause and recalled Non-Aligned Movement resolutions. The Samajwadi Party's Amar Singh says: "Mishra should have refrained from making such blatant statements which go against the proclaimed policy of NAM." And the Communists have accused the government of having "completely sold themselves out to
the US. It is overturning our foreign policy. It is very dangerous."The sangh parivar indeed has an acute Israel obsession. It is
fascinated by the highly militarised nature of Israeli society and by
its state's willingness to use massive force against the Palestinian people whom it sees as terrorism-prone and sub-human, pure and simple. This parallels what the parivar would like to do to India's minorities.Establishing full relations with Israel was always a distinctive part
of the Jana Sangh-BJP's agenda. Indeed, when RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras was asked in late 1991, ie after India's turn towards neoliberalism, what is the one thing he wanted from the
soft-on-the-BJP Narasimha Rao government, he unhesitatingly said: full diplomatic relations with Israel.The BJP's fascination with Zionism is rooted in Islamophobia (and anti-Arabism), and hyper-nationalism. Its ideology is Sharon's machismo and ferocious jingoism. It sees Hindus and Jews (plus Christians) as forming a "strategic alliance" against Islam and Confucianism.
Finally, the intellectually bankrupt "clash of civilisations" theory,
invented by Samuel Huntington as an apology for continued US global domination after the Cold War, has found a political taker-much to the Indian public's misfortune.