India’s stance on Israel and misplaced concerns of its impact on India’s leadership of Global South

As the Hamas began the gruesome campaign against the Israel last week, the world once again seemed to have been divided on the issue of Israel Palestine conflict. Yet, as the horrific images of the Hamas attack on Israel surfaced, its brutality became almost impossible to ignore. As the global community calculated their individual positions, there was curious apprehension on what position India will assume. Not surprisingly, India opted to support the Israel against the terror attacks. The Indian prime minister was quick to air India’s stance on it – Prime Minister Narendra Modi twitted “Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour” - the comment was consciously a brief one, carefully crafted to convey the essentials and did not involve any support to or a priori condonation of Israeli response which has just only started. The thoughtfully worded response had three essentials – it recognised the fact that the attack is indeed a ‘terrorist attack’ – rather than beating around the bush, this categoric representation was also a reflection of a change from the conventional approach of not associating Hamas with terrorism. This apparent acceptance of the fact that Hamas’s provocation qualifies a terrorist attack might have displeased the votaries of India’s ‘traditional’ West Asia policy. Second, Modi himself “tweeted” this, thus position deciding not to delegate this to MEA officials or any statement from the External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. It was an indication of the fact that Prime Minister Modi attached significant priority to the issue of terrorism and India’s support to those countries facing it. Third, the lack of ambiguity in standing for “Israel at this difficult hour” was hinting at India’s categoric position against terrorism of any kind and perpetrated by anyone or anywhere in the world. For a lot of commentators, this amounted to Modi ‘abandoning’ India’s long-standing, sagacious west -Asia policy that rested on the strong support to Palestinian cause and unequivocal ‘condemnation’ of Israel and its ‘expansionist’ policies in the region. While it is true that Modi has fundamentally reoriented India’s policy vis-à-vis Israel and the Arab world, the process however started much before Modi came in. Equally true however is that Modi took reorientation to the logical next level by openly decoupling Indo-Israel relations with other Arab countries alongside maintaining the traditional support to the “viable state of Palestine”.  The recent strengthening of Indo-Israel ties, unapologetic embrace of the two countries on multiple forums and India’s deft balancing of this relation as against the Arab world hinted a refreshing approach to India’s West Asia policy. India’s support to Israel is essentially a continuation of the same policy direction, which evidently has displeased a few. As the attack by Hamas started, those within India who have stuck to rigid anti-Israeli posture — which also amounts to downplaying the terrorism by groups like Hamas — expected a ‘silent India’, if not outrightly siding against Israel. They were indeed up for a major disappointment. Curiously some are voicing this disappointment in the garb of geopolitical concerns of India disappointing its traditional partners, especially in the global south at a time when its competing with China to be influential in the region. Two sets of arguments are made by those who see India siding with Israel as travesty of India’s West Asia policy. One, India’s stance might create a rift between India and the members of global south. This means that India may be risking a possible alienation with its partners from the Global South at a time when India is attempting a massive outreach to these countries. And second, allied to the first, that India will lose the bargaining ground to China in the Global South if India persists with this approach. It is true that countries from the Global South have taken firmer positions against Israel. For instance, African Union maintained that “denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, particularly that of an independent and sovereign State, is the main cause of the permanent Israeli-Palestinian tension” further appealing “to both parties to put an end to military hostilities and to return, without conditions, to the negotiating table." Indonesia, India’ important Southeast Asian partner, argued on the similar lines, though slightly less blatant when it emphasized that “the root of the conflict, namely the occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel, must be resolved according to the parameters agreed upon by the U.N."    Iran has declared “we will stand by the Palestinian fighters until the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem”. This should not surprise anyone given the sustained support Iran has provided to the Hamas. There are speculations as well that the current flare up might have been instigated with their help. Saudi has Arabia called for “immediate cessation of violence”, while Egypt has warned of the “grave consequences” and called for “exercising maximum restraint and avoiding exposing civilians to further danger”. Qatar unconditionally blamed “Israel alone” for the “ongoing escalation of violence with the Palestinian people, and called for both sides to show restraint”. On the other hand, China unsurprisingly has reiterated its traditional support to the state of Palestine while urging “relevant parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and immediately end the hostilities to protect civilians and avoid further deterioration of the situation". Chinese position, it is argued, is in sync with broader position of the counties from the Global South, and India’s appears to be in line with the countries of the ‘Global North’, thus positing a risk of creating a rift. These arguments, flawed on multiple counts, are an indication of persisting cold-war inertia where diplomatic options were calculated through stilted zero-sum logic. It is to this question that we must turn of attention to. First, the argument that India’s support to Palestine cause will provide India with necessary diplomatic dividends in reverse itself is based on ignorance of history. The history suggests that India digested multiple disappointments from the ‘Arab world’ despite decades of unhindered support to the Palestinian cause and persistent public antagonism towards Israel. Former prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s diplomatic investment in the Arab countries did not result in much of benefit for India during the conflicts. For instance, the reaction from these countries after the Chinese offensive against India in 1962 was highly disappointing. Nasser for one, whom Nehru had supported throughout the Suez crisis, could offer nothing more than mediation, a move which created some disappointment in India. On the contrary, David ben Gurion had written to Nehru expressing solidarity and ensured the provision of weapons to India. Similarly, during the 1965 conflict too, Israel thoroughly supported India’s position along with supplying heavy mortars at the time when Arab countries were to no avail. Another significant instance was 1971 Bangladesh liberation war when Israel supplied India with necessary weapons which were useful during the war. It was also the time when India felt let down by its conventional partners in the Arab world including Egypt. In fact, a group of twenty-two Islamic countries openly supported Pakistan in a conference held at the end of June 1971. It is this lack of ‘Arab reciprocity’ in the matters central to India’s strategic interests and a sustained support from Israel on the very same issues created slowly a positive constituency within the Indian establishment towards Israel. As a consequence, though India sported it’s anti-Israel posture on the overt diplomatic and political front, covertly India’s intelligence and defence establishment ensured some connect with Israel which arguably helped India immensely. This relationship got further entrenched with Narasimha Rao normalising relations with Israel, almost four decades after recognizing Israel as state. Since then, it had been slow but a steady recognition of centrality of Israel in India’s strategic calculus – that subsequent governments in varying capacities invested in this relationship attests to this fact. Modi’s approach was a logical build-up of this continuation, albeit with greater energy and little hesitation. The most potent indicator is the way Modi decoupled the relations with Israel and other Arab countries. It practically meant that our relations with Israel stand on its own merit and will be guided by our enlightened national interest. The implication was, India can pursue closer ties with Israel at the same time ensuring the traditional position on Palestine remains intact. It reflected a sense of confidence in India’s ability to navigate complicated relationship and approach issues on their individual merit. India’s position on the recent Israel Hamas confrontation must be contextualised in the same way. India’s ‘moral support’ for Israel, far from jeopardizing India’s strategic interests elsewhere, actually reinforces our core interests. One, India being a strong voice against global terrorism – remaining silent on an evidently terrorist act by Hamas would have diluted India’s credentials as a committed voice against global terrorism. Also, as someone who has continuously demanded international alliance against this global menace, not siding with a strong defence and strategic partner at a such a time would dent India’s genuine efforts at building front against international terrorism. Further, to say that India’s moral support to Israel would dent its credentials in the ‘Global South’ is a self-defeating argument which speaks of the same cold-war logic that defined India’s policy to the Israel Palestine issue. It means that India’s outreach to Global South is too feeble to be disturbed by India’s principled position against terrorism. Far from it, India today is better poised to maintain its ties with countries based on the ideas of mutually recognized interests and ability of India to voice the concerns of Global South on multiple forums. India’s insistence and further success in including African Union in G-20 is just one example of it. As India will expand its sphere of influence, it cannot hope to have its relations with countries from the Global South stand on the feeble grounds which can get hurt by India’s beneficial relations with other countries – in this case Israel. That precisely is the essence of ‘strategic autonomy’ – the ability to secure core national interest in the face of competing geo-political trends. India’s future diplomatic soundness will rest on India’s ability to manoeuvre this difficult international terrain. To suggest that India has faulted by siding Israel as it will have negative impact on its stand in the ‘Global South’ is the same Cold War attitude that provided India with no sound benefits. Instead, it eschewed the possibility of developing critical partnerships that could have been highly beneficial. To reiterate the same redundant logic in the changed circumstances is a reflection of ideologically rigid approach to foreign policy that refuses to look beyond the defunct Cold War ideas. It is therefore important that the public discourse on the foreign policy moves beyond the cold-war hangover. As a strong defence and strategic partner of Israel, India’s support to Israel against the brutal terrorist attack was a necessity. This necessity also coincides with India core’s interest, particularly with regards to fighting global menace of terrorism. The real test of Modi’s diplomacy however will be in the way it responds to the escalation of this conflict which seems inevitable now. The author is Assistant Professor (Politics & International Relations) at Symbiosis School for Liberal Arts. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News, India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.