India’s balanced approach in Israel-Palestine conflict

Navjit Singh | Updated: June 03, 2021, 7:43 AM

Share on:

India’s balanced approach in Israel-Palestine conflict.

The eleven days conflict – biggest since 2014 – between Israel and Hamas ended with the ceasefire. Some analysts are referring it to as a ‘war’ which left 240 dead on either side including 64 children. Majority of the causalities are inflicted by people of Gaza, western part of Palestine governed by Hamas organisation.

India has strategic interest in the West Asia region which makes it a stakeholder in establishing peace without restraining the relationship with either party. This balanced approach is needed now more than ever as India chairs the high-table in United Nations currently.

India issued a poised statement at the open UN Security Council Session on the recent conflict where it attempted to reaffirm its traditional support for the ‘Just Palestine Cause’, and delicately balanced it with the warm relationship emerging with the Israel after PM Modi became the first Prime Minister to visit the Jewish land back in 2017. 

The speech delivered at the UNSC by India’s permanent representative, TS Tirumurti, is a balanced, nuanced, and layered statement that reflects India’s geopolitical constraints and addresses New Delhi’s indirect yet crucial stakes in the West Asian conflict. 

In the meeting convened on the “The Situation of Middle East/Question of Palestine”, TS Tirumurti expressed concern over violence in Jerusalem, especially on the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount during the holy month of Ramadan.

India’s statement hyphenated both the religious sites, which are sacred to both Jews and Arab Muslims, to not hurt the sentiments of people as religious value of the site is too high to indulge into. The move could further complicate the issue by turning it to a religious one that India wants to steer clear of. India refute the Jewish claim over Islam’s third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina, and negates “exclusive control and ownership”. 

India appealed to “both sides to show extreme restraint, desist from actions that exacerbate tensions, and refrain from attempts to unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighbourhood”.

The “unilateral actions” mentioned in the statement are the actions initiated by Israeli Police, and consequently, clashes erupted at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This indicates that India is cautiously warning Israel to restrain, calling the latter to maintain status-quo, and contesting Tel Aviv’s version of events.

India’s “strong support to the just Palestinian cause and its unwavering commitment to the two-State solution” would seem New Delhi is supporting the establishment of Palestinian state “in line with the vision of the two States living side by side within secure and recognised borders,” while admonishing Israel. 

India pressed on the “need for immediate resumption of dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian authorities,” indicating that legitimate Government representing Palestinian people is Palestinian authority led by Fatah, not Hamas. The absence of direct and meaningful negotiations between the parties is widening the trust deficit between the parties.” The reference is to Palestinian authority, not Hamas.

India was careful not to upset Israel’s sensitivities. Israel, along with western media and nations, consider Hamas a terrorist outfit which seeks to propagate unending jihad against Israel.

India abstained from the United Nations vote on the US resolution condemning Hamas for firing rockets into Israel and inciting violence in late 2018, but in the UN statement, India formally “condemns” “indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel,” shifting towards the Israeli stance about Hamas being a strategic enemy of the country.

India also frames Israeli response as “retaliatory strikes,” quite unlike the emerging global narrative that identified Israel as the perpetrator and aggressor. By mentioning Palestinian authority in the statement, India reiterated that the former is a legitimate body for the negotiations to compromise, and made a clear distinction between the traditional backing of political process within Palestine leading to a two-state solution and terrorism from Hamas.

Growth in India-Israel relations

India’s balanced approach in Israel-Palestine conflict

Contrary to the popular perception, the balancing act visible in India’s recent statements on the Gaza conflict at a UN Security Council session has been in the making for as many years as India has been independent. The pragmatism of India’s stand on the Israel-Palestine issue can be seen through the evolving patterns of India’s policy on Israel over the last eight decades. 

India and Israel have a chequered past. While India, under the Jawaharlal Nehru-led Indian National Congress (INC) Government, did recognise Israel in September 1950, bilateral relations remained strained as Nehru’s ‘West Asia policy’ gave significant consideration to the Arab sentiments, and opposed the Zionist project in Palestine. 

In push and pull factors affecting India’s choices vis-à-vis Israel, the initial animosity towards Israel to a very large extent could be explained by the INC’s perception of the British tactics of divide and rule. Nehru considered the Palestine issue analogous to the situation on Indian subcontinent. According to Nehru, the British were employing divide and rule tactics between Hindus and Muslims and pitting Jews against Arabs. 

Another domestic factor that affected India’s policies towards Israel is India’s large Muslim constituency. The impossibility of overlooking the sentiments of the Muslim electorate dissuaded successive Indian governments from taking a pro-Israel policy stance. 

Alternatively, the international factors that affected India’s anti-Israel stance included among others the Pakistan issue, the Soviet Union–India partnership, and economic considerations. The Pakistan factor and the need for diplomatic support from Arab countries guided India’s policy options.

Immediately after independence and with ongoing tensions in Jammu and Kashmir, the then Indian Government was concerned about Pakistan garnering favour from the Arab countries over India. By aligning with the Arab world, New Delhi was hopeful that the Arab countries would at least take a neutral stance on Indo-Pakistani issues.

Furthermore, India and Israel ended up on opposite sides during the Cold War. The USA strongly supported Israel, but India’s sympathies were with the Soviet Union. Upon culmination of the Cold War, and the end of structural constraints, a reorientation of policy towards Israel was made possible.

In the post-Soviet era, India was keen on acquiring US support, which entailed a shift in India’s policy towards Israel. Economic considerations have also significantly guided India’s political choices towards Israel. India’s dependence on the Gulf States for oil placed India in a vulnerable position post-independence.

Moreover, remittances of Indian citizens employed in the Arab states in various occupations – from labourers to skilled technicians – have become an important consideration for the Indian Government in charting its Israel-related policies. 

This did not detract from the fact that India did solicit Israel’s military and intelligence assistance during and after the Sino-Indian War of 1962. 

Only on 29 January 1992, under the premiership of PV Narasimha Rao, the Congress Government enacted full diplomatic relations with Israel through the establishment of embassies and exchange of envoys.

However, overtly, India continued with its pro-Palestine policy. Israel–Palestine conflict remained the primary concern for successive Indian Governments that inhibited any Indian Prime Minister from visiting Israel although some Indian ministers and senior military officials exchanged visits after 1992. A planned 2006 trip by then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee was reportedly cancelled because of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. 

The last Israeli Prime Minister to visit India – pre-2014 – was Ariel Sharon in 2003, and no defence minister had ever visited despite those ties. Thus, an Israeli Ambassador remarked about the relationship being ‘held under the carpet’. 

The explicit disassociation of ‘Israel’ from ‘Palestine’ was only undertaken in the Modi-led Government because the NDA had made it explicit in its West Asia policy that ‘Israel’ and ‘Palestine’ were to be ‘de-hyphenated’ and neither of them were to have an impact on India’s policy towards the other.

In International Politics, de-hyphenation means dealing with two countries, which have adversarial relationship between them, in an independent manner. This would mean building relationship with one, ignoring the complexities of its relations with the other.

 The United States (US) has advocated such a policy vis-à-vis India and Pakistan since the second-term Bush presidency, connoting that its relationship with India would stand on its own rather than getting affected by its relations with Pakistan. It has served the India-US relations well. 

This policy was confirmed with Modi’s stand-alone Israel visit in 2017, and the recognition of Zionism when he paid homage to the grave of Theodor Herzl, considered as the founding father of Zionism. 

Since India normalised relations with Israel in 1992, the partnership has developed steadily. The countries have a close defence, homeland security, and intelligence relationship — one that the two governments do not talk much about publicly. Shared concerns about terrorism have proven to be a key driver, and so have commercial interests (including Israel’s quest for additional markets and India’s desire to diversify its defence suppliers, get access to better technology, and co-develop and co-produce equipment). India has become Israeli defence companies’ largest customer. Israel, in turn, has shot up on India’s list of suppliers.

Beyond the defence and security relationship, cooperation in the agricultural sector — water management, research and development, sharing of best practices — might have the most on-the-ground impact, including in terms of building constituencies for Israel at the state level in India. As Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, Modi himself had expressed admiration for Israel’s achievements, including “how it has overcome various adversities to make the desert bloom.”

Economic ties have also grown. The two countries are negotiating a free trade agreement, and have been trying to encourage greater investments from the other. The success of Indian and Israeli information technology companies has particularly led to interest in collaboration in that sector.

India fighting for ‘Just Palestine Cause’

India’s balanced approach in Israel-Palestine conflict

India’s solidarity with the Palestinian people, and its attitude to the Palestinian question was given voice during our freedom struggle by Mahatma Gandhi. Since then, empathy with the Palestinian cause, and friendship with the people of Palestine have become an integral part of India’s foreign policy. “The relationship with Palestine was almost an article of faith in Indian foreign policy for over four decades” as described by the Indian Express. 

India became the first Non-Arab State to recognise PLO as sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in 1974. This stance is maintained till today, despite the closeness of India-Israel relations, and despite ‘Just Palestinian Cause’ considered to be the ‘lost cause’ in west Asian Arab politics, especially after Abraham Accord signed between Arab nations and Israel.

The Palestine accused these Arab nations of “betrayal” to the cause, on the other hand, India still strongly supports the ‘just Palestinian Cause’, and showed “its unwavering commitment to the two-state solution” in the United Nations Security Council on the expense of its growing economic, strategic, political relationship with the Jewish nation.

India was one of the first countries to recognize the State of Palestine in 1988, and be it late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat or the incumbent Mahmoud Abbas, India has played host to them a number of times. India showed its solidarity with the Palestinian people by opening its Representative Office to the Palestine Authority in Gaza, which later was shifted to Ramallah in 2003. 

India has always played a proactive role in garnering support for the Palestinian cause in multilateral fora especially in United Nations. India co-sponsored the draft resolution on “the right of Palestinians to self-determination” during the 53rd session of the UN General Assembly and voted in favour of it. India also voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution in October 2003 against construction of the separation wall by Israel and supported subsequent resolutions of the UNGA in this regard. India voted in favour of accepting Palestine as a full member of UNESCO. At the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 2012 the status of Palestine was upgraded to a ‘non-member state’. India co-sponsored this resolution and voted in favour of it. India supported the Bandung Declaration on Palestine at Asian African Commemorative Conference in April 2015. India supported installation of Palestinian flag at UN premises along with other observer states, like the flags of member states, in September 2015. 

On balance, therefore, India’s carefully drafted statement backs Israel’s right to self-defence against indiscriminate attacks from a terrorist outfit that targets Israeli civilians, derecognises the role of Hamas as the representative of Palestinian people, and contests the framing of the Palestinian narrative of the Gaza conflict while leaning on Israel to show restraint. India is also mindful of not hurting Arab sentiment. Unpacking the layers of the clever document makes it evident where India’s empathies lie.

Related Discussion

.
2 months ago
.
2 months ago
.
6 months ago
.
6 months ago

View More